[ Page 7607 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

Ombudsman's annual report, 1981.

Mr. Speaker –– 7607

Constitutional Question Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 41). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 7607

Family Relations Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 14). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 7607

Oral Questions

Foreclosure writs. Mr. Gabelmann –– 7607

Arbitration in the public sector. Mr. King –– 7608

Mr. Barrett

Northeast coal master agreement. Ms. Sanford –– 7608

Quarterly estimates of gross provincial product. Mr. Stupich –– 7609

Confidential government studies. Mr. Stupich –– 7609

Transpo 86 board nominees. Mr. Macdonald –– 7609

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates,

On vote 5: minister's office –– 7609

Hon. Mr. Williams

Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 29). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7610

Mr. Lauk –– 7610

Mr. Leggatt –– 7611

Mr. Lorimer –– 7612

Mr. Levi –– 7612

Mr. Mussallem –– 7612

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 7613

Mr. Mitchell –– 7613

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7613

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

On section 9 –– 7614

Mr. Barber

Mr. Levi

Mr. Lea

Ms. Brown

Ms. Sanford

MONDAY, MAY 17, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. DAVIDSON: In the gallery today from Tsawwassen Junior Secondary School we have several students with their teachers, Mr. Beach, Mr. Peacosh and Mrs. Looije. We also have several students from St. Foy, Quebec, and I'd ask the House to make them very welcome here this afternoon.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today two visitors from Japan. These visitors represent the town of Ishikari, which is on the northernmost island of Hokkaido. Our guests are Mr. Sukeyuki Aoyama, who is the manager of promotion and self-government for the town, and Mr. Mansahito Miyamori, who is the general manager of affairs in the town office. Ishikari is in the process of twinning with our own city of Campbell River, and I'm sure this will be of great interest to some of the members on the other side of the House. Their hosts from Campbell River are also here with us today, and they include Mr. Warren Peterson and Mr. Ron Barnard, who are co-chairmen of the Campbell River Chamber of Commerce twinning committee. They are accompanied by Mrs. Junko MacKinnon of Brentwood Bay, who is acting as their interpreter. I thought it would also interest members to know that our Japanese visitors come from a city of 16,000 people which is known as the salmon capital of their country. It is on a bay in the Sea of Japan, and I'm told it is strikingly similar to Campbell River in many ways. I would ask all members of the House to ask our visitors to join us today and wish them well in their visit and twinning with Campbell River.

MR. GABELMANN: The Leader of the Opposition was trying to teach me a few words of Japanese, but I am afraid that I am a slow learner and I didn't quite pick up on them.

I too would like to join with the Minister of Tourism in welcoming Mr. Barnard and Mr. Peterson from the Chamber of Commerce in Campbell River and especially Mr. Aoyama and Miyamori from the city of Ishikari in Japan. I am sure that all members will join with both of us in welcoming them here to Victoria on such an important day in their lives and an important day, I might say, for Campbell River in its program of twinning with the city of Ishikari.

MR. SEGARTY: In the gallery today is a very dedicated public servant from Cranbrook, deputy government agent Mr. Martin Reid. Along with Martin is Mr. Murdoch McIver from Cranbrook. I would like the House to give them a welcome this afternoon.

MR. BARRETT: What I was going to suggest to the member was that in expressing our very great appreciation for the twinning program between Japan — particularly Hokkaido's cities — and British Columbia, just a personal message: watakushiwa hontom arai gatadesu.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: On behalf of our two members for Vancouver–Little Mountain — the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) — and my seatmate the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and myself, would members join in welcoming students from Osler Elementary School in Vancouver who are in the precincts today with their teacher, Mr. Banks, and are also accompanied by one parent, Alderman Helen Boyce of the city of Vancouver.

MR. HANSON: In the gallery today there is a retired registered nurse from my riding. Her name is Lillian Knighton. I would ask the House to welcome her.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today are two gentlemen from the city of Penticton — Mr. Bob Klatt and Mr. Jake Friesen. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Students from my constituency are here today, from Vedder Elementary School. Please make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker tabled the 1981 annual report of the ombudsman.

Introduction of Bills

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Constitutional Question Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 41 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FAMILY RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Family Relations Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 14 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

FORECLOSURE WRITS

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. In the first four months of this year the number of foreclosure writs served by the sheriff's office in Vancouver was 979. This is more than a threefold increase over the same period last year. The sheriff's office is now serving in excess of three foreclosure writs each working hour. Can the minister advise what action the government has decided to take to alleviate the impact of vicious interest rates upon B.C. homeowners and small business people?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, that's news to me. I wish the member would identify whether he is referring to small business industry or to homeowners, and I wish he'd separate the numbers into homeowners and small business, and industrial as well.

[ Page 7608 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, the minister may well wish that I ask the question in a different manner because he's afraid to give an answer to a very dramatic increase in foreclosures. These are foreclosures in both small businesses and in homes, which have tripled from the first four months of last year to the first four months of this year. Has the minister decided to introduce legislation particularly to protect homeowners against this wave of foreclosures by the banks?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, my ministry doesn't include small business, so I would suggest that the information he's conveying is more relevant to the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development than it is to the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. Very few concerns on this issue have been expressed to me by homeowners in British Columbia.

ARBITRATION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Labour. On Friday last, Norman Spector, the deputy minister in the Premier's office, was reported as saying to two public-sector arbitrators, paraphrasing the Premier: "If you guys can't do this — if you can't do the job — then, believe me, I reserve the right in exceptional circumstances to recall the Legislature and deal with these matters." Has the minister decided that government officials should try to influence arbitrators through thinly disguised threats?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I presume this was published in the paper on the weekend. I haven't seen the publication, and I'm really not in a position to make any comment whatsoever.

MR. KING: Since the Minister of Labour is the person responsible for appointing public arbitrators, is it his policy to allow intimidation of that arbitrator by the Premier or any other official or the Premier's deputy? It's a very simple question.

MR. SPEAKER: A further question from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the senior public servant in the Premier's office is now authorized to threaten and influence arbitrators, can the Minister of Labour advise where he hopes to find people to take on the responsibility of arbitrators in the province?

MR. SPEAKER: A new question from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, in view of Mr. Spector's comments that the integrity of the arbitration process is relatively unimportant, can the minister advise what new methods of resolving labour-management disputes without strikes he is contemplating? The arbitrators themselves are crying out and objecting to the type of intimidation which the Premier's office is trying to force on them. Is the Minister of Labour going to sit in cowardly fashion and allow that to happen to reputable people in the province?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is out of order. Hon. members, questions need to be phrased in a fashion not prone to create disorder in the House. Does the Minister of Labour wish to answer?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, as I advised the member, I haven't had an opportunity to read the comments or have them confirmed. I cannot verify anything that's been said. I will tell you that the integrity of collective bargaining and the integrity of the arbitrators who are selected will be preserved within the province of British Columbia.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to hear that response from the very tough-minded Minister of Labour. Can he assure the House that he was consulted before Mr. Spector and the Premier threatened the arbitrators?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. Can we interpret his answer as meaning that there will be no interference with an arbitrator's award, even if it's outside the guidelines announced by the Premier in the hallway?

NORTHEAST COAL MASTER AGREEMENT

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour frequently talks of his special interest in manpower training. Can the minister tell us what provisions there are in the master agreement between the government of B.C. and the northeast coal companies to provide training programs?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I will have to take that question as notice.

MS. SANFORD: I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not there is a clause in the master agreement to provide assistance to unemployed native people in the Prince George region. That's his area, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this public knowledge?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the last question, I'll have to take that as notice as well. I gather it was something about people in the Prince George area and the natives.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the question is taken as notice, it can be taken from the Blues.

MS. SANFORD: I'm wondering if the minister could tell us if there is a clause in the agreement requiring the companies to provide training and hiring of women.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I will take that question as notice.

MS. SANFORD: I wonder if the minister will undertake to table the comprehensive agreement so that we could all see it.

[ Page 7609 ]

QUARTERLY ESTIMATES
OF GROSS PROVINCIAL PRODUCT

MR. STUPICH: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Private-sector forecasting agencies continue to produce B.C. growth forecasts which are seriously at variance with the forecast upon which the minister's budget is based. In this regard, Mr. Bill Hamilton, president of the Employers Council of B.C., has noted that we do not have any provincial government measure of quarterly provincial product. Has the minister decided to publish a detailed quarterly estimate of gross provincial product?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Most quarterly reports that I recall, I think, make reference to our variation or targeting of gross provincial product. I'm a little puzzled by the statement contained in the member's question. Certainly I recall a quarterly report last fall specifically in which there was discussion flowing out of that report, if not actually contained in the report, with respect to the downward revision of our forecast for the fiscal year just ended.

MR. STUPICH: The question was with respect to a detailed quarterly estimate of gross provincial product — not just the targeted figure but the details behind that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will take that under consideration as a possible expansion of an already quite comprehensive reporting mechanism through the quarterly reports, introduced by this government when it first took office. We always look for ways in which the quarterly report can provide more information to the people of British Columbia. This may be one of those cases.

CONFIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES

MR. STUPICH: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. In reply to written requests from the opposition to officials of the central statistics bureau to obtain copies of two specific publications concerning British Columbia's economic performance, the minister wrote: "These reports are for internal distribution within government only. They are not available to the general public." Why is the minister hiding this information from the members of the Legislature?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The member for Nanaimo should know full well. I think he served very briefly as Minister of Finance in the government, when he took over the sinking ship when the Leader of the Opposition gave it to him. He knows there are internal studies done that are not totally finalized or backed up. He also knows that in my department, as well as in Finance, we are continually monitoring the situation and obtaining information. Some of that information has to be cross-referenced between departments and checked out, and the information he is talking about, when in his hands, would not give the final picture.

This government brings out quarterly annual reports, we put out a departmental forecast, and the public of this province receives more information today from government than they've ever received before.

MR. STUPICH: One of the reports I was inquiring about is a bi-monthly publication on current statistics. Another is a monthly economic statistics report. My question is: is this minister hiding that information from the Minister of Finance?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know whether or not that is a facetious question. In this government all departments work together as they've never worked before, not like when they were government and the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing. Ministers were off spending money like it was going out of style. They didn't know how to run a government. They even said so in the report. Norman Levi said that in his report: "We're a faceless ship — we don't know where we're going in this government." Indeed we do work together. Certainly my department and the Department of Finance and all departments of government work together.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

TRANSPO 86 BOARD NOMINEES

MR. MACDONALD: The Transpo 86 bill eliminates the appointment by the city of Vancouver of three nominees to the board. What I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs is: did he consult with the city of Vancouver or even the two nominees who are now appointed for the city of Vancouver before the introduction of that change?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I am not the minister responsible for Transpo.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, with leave I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave not granted.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

On vote 5: minister's office, $164,608.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. HOWARD: I rise pursuant to the provisions of standing order 37, inasmuch as the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) both rose at the same time to seek the floor. I would move that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke be now heard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I must again indicate that the acting House Leader, the Attorney-General, had been
recognized by the Chair, had been given the right to proceed,

[ Page 7610 ]

and while that member was still speaking he had the floor and made the motion accordingly. The point of order raised by the member is therefore, in the opinion of the Chair, one that cannot be raised at this time.

MR. HOWARD: That sure can't be accepted here. I challenge that preposterous ruling.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during committee a matter was raised challenging the Chair. That matter had to do with standing order 37 and the Chair's ability to recognize a member while on his feet.

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

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 23

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

The House in committee of supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 29.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS: I have a few brief remarks with respect to this amending act. In this bill the government seeks amendments to assist in the control of what is clearly a quite serious situation which could undermine the tax revenue base of the Tobacco Tax Act. It will be known by some, if not all, hon. members that due to the very low tax rate on cigarettes in the province of Alberta and the current tax levels on tobacco products in all of the other provinces of Canada, including British Columbia, it has now become profitable for some individuals to purchase cigarettes in large quantities in Alberta and sell them in other parts of Canada, not just in B.C. As a result, the provinces in which these out-of-province cigarettes are sold lose their proper tax revenues on the sale of these cigarettes. The government regards this as a serious situation which should be corrected at the earliest possible time.

One section of the act requires all persons who sell tobacco products at wholesale to be registered with the Ministry of Finance consumer taxation branch. Further, through this bill we would enable the consumer taxation branch, which is charged with the administration of this act, to impose a penalty equal to the amount of the taxes that should have been collected where a dealer has failed to collect the tax.

Section 7, if I may just refer to it briefly, increases fines to levels which will serve as a deterrent to those persons who fail to report the tax payable on cigarettes purchased out of province for resale in British Columbia, for destroying or altering records or for making or participating in the making of false or deceptive entries in their records in order to evade the payments of tax.

Mr. Speaker, there are other comments which could be made in committee. I think the members, however, will understand the problem which is being experienced in a number of provinces, not only in British Columbia, because of the absence of a significant tax rate in the province of Alberta. I might also say that in discussions relative to this matter we have found my counterpart the treasurer of Alberta, and his officials, to be very sympathetic and understanding with respect to the situation. I therefore move second reading of Bill 29.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I rise in second reading of the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1982, to bring to all members' attention a very unsavoury tendency on the part of this government. They seem to have the solution to a problem uppermost in their mind: that is, the collection of taxes and the forthrightness of those dealers collecting the tax on the government's behalf and transmitting that tax to Treasury. The unsavoury tendency I'm talking about is the question of minimum fines. I raise that under second reading because it's a far-reaching and pervasive new approach. It's not the idea of a minimum fine that's been raised from time to time, but it's that the widespread usage of a minimum fine is an extremely dangerous approach by this government. It indicates a tendency on the part of the government to have more interest not in the protection of the individual under the law and the flexibility of a judge to make a proper disposition of a case upon conviction but the tendency of the government to dictate a minimum fine in a sweeping, insensitive and arbitrary manner under these circumstances.

[ Page 7611 ]

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) have travelled all over this province and talked to small business people. One of the major complaints they have is the tremendous amount of paperwork they have to do for federal, provincial and municipal governments, They're fed up to the cars with that kind of thing. If there's a technical conviction, for example, the provisions of this kind of quasi-criminal statute.... I suggest that the onus is not quite as heavy on the Crown to prove substantive offence. Here we have these business people throughout the province dragged before the courts who could quite easily be guilty of a technical offence or a misunderstanding of the law. But in a quasi-criminal section, mistake of the law is no defence, even though there may be a legitimate reason for that person to be mistaken about the law. The complexities of this statute and other red tape that small business people have to go through across this province could easily lead to many small business people being prosecuted, hauled up like criminals and given a minimum sentence of $500 in one case or $1,000 in another case.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a $5,000 minimum sentence.

MR. LAUK: A $5,000 minimum sentence in terms of imprisonment imposed at the discretion of the court.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: There's one minimum here of a $1,000 fine

The others are $500, $200 and $300. I just think minimum fines are a bad idea. I don't always like what judges do in the courtroom, but I do feel that the judge has an opportunity that we don't have. We're deciding here for all possible cases, but a judge looks at each case on its individual facts and makes a decision about disposition. I think that's at least an opportunity for a fairer hearing for individuals that come across the law. I really don't like minimum sentences in these kinds of things.

There's a strong argument to be made under the Criminal Code for particular offences, but we're not arguing criminal law in this Legislature. That's a federal responsibility. I do think that this unsavoury, dangerous tendency on the part of the government reflects a philosophy that shows a lack of regard for individuals. They only have regard, as a central government, for solving the problem that they have in collecting taxes, and I think that the balance of convenience here has been misconstrued by the government. I think that the balance of convenience should be in favour of the individual taxpayer and not in favour of the government, acting on the public's behalf as a whole. I think that in this situation not enough regard for the individual small businessman has been taken by the government.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal with the same section of the proposal, section 9. The old legislation, which the minister is attempting to change, had section 27, which provided, for a first offence, a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $500, or a term of imprisonment of not less than ten days and not more than 30 days, or both fine and imprisonment. That's the old section 27. The new section that we're now about to pass increases the minimum fine to $500.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member understands that we are not on this section.

MR. LEGGATT: I realize that. With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker. the principle of the bill, however, is contained within this section. The principle of the bill is to make sure that the sanctions are large, and by making them large, they are making them certain. I'm sure the minister would argue that by putting a minimum fine in, he's making the amount of the fines more certain. In fact, as the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) has pointed out, this is a trend that's gone on for a long time. It's not just this particular bill; there's a whole series of bills that this Legislature is constantly exposed to which, in essence, express a lack of confidence in the judiciary. In essence, those bills are saying: "Well, we think that the people we have appointed as magistrates and judges in this province do not know what they're doing in these areas. Therefore we're going to tell them what the minimum fines are, and we're not going to give them any discretion to go below a certain number."

When you're dealing with non-criminal legislation, which is this kind of legislation — and to a large extent, the liquor act has the same problems within it — that's when you need some discretion, because non-criminal offences are not venal offences. They're not the kind of offences that go to the traditional feeling of criminal law — the feeling in the community of being offended by an offence. This is a wrist-slapping kind of offence — the kind of thing that we really should have discretion on the part of the magistrate about, so that he can judge a case. If it's a flagrant case, he'll reflect that, and it's fine. But if it's inadvertence on the part of a merchant, for example, why should he be faced with a minimum of $500 over something that's relatively trivial and unimportant?

This is a trend that's been going on with a lot of governments, but with this one in particular. We can go through the statutes one by one and we'll find that more and more the judges of this province are losing their jurisdiction to use their discretion to help the individual or to exercise a little equality of compassion and mercy in the courts by removing this minimum fine.

The bill, of course, does not deal with the question of the evil of tobacco itself, which is now the greatest health hazard that we face in North America. The concern of the government is to make sure that it maximizes its revenue and doesn't let any of those dollars slip through its fingers. What it should be doing is talking about tobacco and presenting us with some legislation which demonstrates a way to reduce the greatest cancer-causing agent that we have in society. We still promote cigarettes to an incredible degree by advertising in newspapers and magazines, promoting a lifestyle which is literally killing people all across this country. If you want to reduce health costs, just go into any hospital and ask any person working in surgery, and the first thing they will tell you is: "Don't smoke cigarettes." In fact, when you talk to a surgeon, he'll tell you that when people come into an operating room he knows immediately whether they're a smoker because of the way they react to the anesthetic. It's an incredible health hazard. This bill doesn' t do anything to discourage it, that's for sure. It is an attempt to add to the revenues. In the process, of course, it is resulting in an injustice to small businessmen who handle this product by taking away the judge's discretion to impose a fine.

[ Page 7612 ]

It also increases the power of the police tremendously. When you have minimum fines, the police handling enforcement are given tremendous power that they don't normally have. It means, for example, that where a person is facing a very large minimum fine, the offence is going to be addressed very differently than if there were some discretion on the part of the magistrate. It is bad legislation to continue to put in minimum fines. I have confidence in the judges of this province. I have confidence that magistrates will exercise their judgment fairly and properly and take the fact patterns into consideration when they render their decisions. This idea of the Legislature constantly eroding that jurisdiction is wrong. It is a mistake, and it offends against the normal sense of justice that most of us have.

MR. LORIMER: I want to add my words of support to those of my two previous colleagues in regard to the question of minimum fines. I am sure that the Attorney-General sitting there agrees with what I am going to say. That is that, normally speaking, most statutes with minimum fines make for poor legislation and poor law. The number of people who are going to be charged with this particular offence is going to be very varied, and the circumstances are going to be very varied indeed. Some may deserve a penalty of a far greater amount than the minimum, while others may not be that culpable and probably should not reach the minimum sentence. More justice may prevail if the offence is not proceeded with. Provincial judges should in my opinion decide whether a penalty should be levied or not.

If we keep on having minimum sentences in our legislation, we are giving the judges no discretion whatever. Our justice system could eventually end up being run by computers to read out the figures. I would hope that you discuss this matter with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). I am sure he will agree that the minimum sentences in statutes such as this.... These are not in any way major crimes — they may be financial crimes and so on — and justice would prevail just as well without minimum sentences, so that the factors could be taken into consideration by the judge in determining what the penalty should be. I can see little value in this legislation setting out minimum standards.

MR. LEVI: On behalf of the non-legal fraternity.... While my colleagues were making their comments about the application of justice, I was thinking about the kind of thing we get involved with in another area involving a drug — when we talk about heroin. Here we are using a sledgehammer approach on businessmen, particularly in these times when businessmen are having a tough enough time anyway. The kind of fine that is inside this legislation could literally bankrupt an operation, yet this is the kind of economic warfare that you want to wreak on businessmen who many times unknowingly get involved in this kind of offence. I wish the government would take the same sledgehammer approach in dealing with heroin traffickers. It is very rare that we ever give a heroin trafficker a big fine, a wallop — $100,000 or a quarter of a million dollars. We know they've got the money; it's out there somewhere. So we select businessmen....

AN HON. MEMBER: They get seven years, Norm.

MR. LEVI: Well, my God, seven years in the prisons that we've got these days doesn't answer in any way the kind of things that are going on here. If this is the way the government is going, somehow they're going to wreak this incredible sledgehammer legislation on small business people.

The other thing is that time and time again, for those people who appear before the courts who represent offenders, we're often told.... You hear from the appeal courts that there is an opportunity to talk about mitigation of sentence. There is no opportunity to mitigate anything; if you're convicted, that's it. You might pay the big number of $5,000 or, if you haven't got the money, you might go to jail for three months. It's the order of the importance and the gravity of the nature of the offence that is somewhat confusing to me. Is this an attempt at a deterrent effect to stop this kind of thing going on? It's not consistent with the application of law. This is a quasi...well, it's a criminal offence, except that it's being brought in as a public statute. It's seen as something which is criminal, and yet the application in those that are actually under criminal law offences are dealt with in a more evenhanded fashion.

The other thing which the minister might comment on and we'll ask him in committee — is the purpose of the retroactivity. They want to make the thing retroactive. Presumably there are people before the courts in respect to these offences who will be dealt with in the new way rather than the old way. Perhaps he can give us some comment on this. This is an entirely even-handed approach, given the general application of the way we deal with other kinds of criminal offenders. Why this should be the exception, why it should be directed at small business people and more particularly, Mr. Speaker, why in this particular time — in this tremendous economic depression — we've got the minister come in with this incredible sledge-hammer legislation....

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that I am delaying the House. I know the minister is anxious to close debate on the bill; but there is something I have to say that cannot be said at another time, and I request this opportunity to say it. The hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) said that tobacco is the number one killer in this country. I submit to the honourable House that what is happening here today is making the sale of tobacco just a little more difficult, a little more restrained and a little more dangerous, recognized in this overriding principle. But I'd like to bring to the attention of the hon. members on this side who have already spoken about the inconvenience to the small businessman. I charge them, in replying to the principle in this bill, with expediency, and expediency rests in this way. During a previous Social Credit government we passed the Tobacco Advertising Restraint Act. It was a good act, and all we said in that act was that we were going to hold back on the pushers of tobacco. There was a principle similar to this act. We're doing it through a different route, and it's not the same thing, because that deal was lost. That process of slowing down this dangerous drug that was killing our people was slowed down immeasurably, and perhaps reversed, by that party until we find ourselves in this position today.

No sooner were they in office in 1972 than they said in the Speech from the Throne that they would repeal the Tobacco Advertising Restraint Act, which they did forthwith. The NDP reversed the course this government was on in attempting to restrain the sale of tobacco, which is actually a dealing in death, and so I appeal to this party that they should not be speaking out of both sides of their mouths and that today they should join with us in the necessity of passing this act without

[ Page 7613 ]

question. It has a purpose, and the purpose is the health of the people.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to join in the debate on second reading of Bill 29 just to address myself to some of the remarks from members of the opposition who, being lawyers, have made their presentation and have disappeared. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we don't like minimum fines either, and they are only to be employed in those circumstances where a very clear message must be given to those who might flout the law and flagrantly avoid the clear implications of the statute.

So far as the small business person is concerned, we considered that very carefully. We know that in the tax gathering divisions of the Ministry of Finance they are not anxious to proceed with offences against persons who are legitimately engaged in business and are prepared to follow the very simple rules that are set out, and they're prepared to take any steps to assist people in ensuring that they can obey the law. It is, however, unfortunate that there are some people in business — not necessarily only in small business, or perhaps not in small business at all — who, when the law has been made very clear to them and they know what their obligations are, flagrantly offend. It is for this reason that maximum fine contain not a sledgehammer, as the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) called it, but a gentle tap on the knuckles to indicate that maybe that shouldn't be done.

There is one section where the minimum fines are much larger. Those sections deal with people who are engaged in contraband activities. In that respect, I wish to make it abundantly clear that we are prepared to specify very high minimum fines for people who want to deal in contraband. They may in the course of their dealings not offend against the Criminal Code, but if they offend against the taxing statutes by dealing in contraband, then they can expect to receive a very significant penalty.

Yes, the judges in the province are capable of carrying out their responsibilities in sentencing, But it is only when you provide meaningful minimum penalties that the courts themselves are able to indicate to persons who appear before them how severe this Legislature has considered certain offences, and it is in that light that these minimum fines are provided.

MR. MITCHELL: I would just like to join with some of my colleagues of the non-legal fraternity on this side. I think that when you look at this bill you should review the development of the court system throughout British Columbia. One of the important developments within the court system over the last 20 years has been the pre-sentence record that we have in conjunction with judges and prosecutors. I believe that it is within this part of the court system that we can properly establish what degree of offence took place. The pre-sentence report, in conjunction with the presentation by the prosecutor, can establish the intent of the person. I feel that in this legislation you may find a lot of little people, i.e., fishermen or sailors returning from sea, who may have brought a few extra cartons of cigarettes ashore and sold them to their friends, or they got into a store, and it really isn't an organized process of dealers trying to make a fortune. I feel there are a lot of small stores that may get tied up in this off-sale dealing, and if it is of a minimum nature, and this comes out in the pre-sentence report, then the fine can be established properly with that research. I feel that the minimum fine — and I here must join with the legal fraternity who sit on this side of the House — takes power from the pre-sentence reports that come in from the social workers. They may be a part of the court system, but they do deal with people as individuals. I think that to bring in a high minimum fine in the legislation is to roll back the years it has taken to develop that within our judicial system.

At one time all things were the same for rich and poor, and I feel that we have got away from that philosophy. I feel that this is legislation we don't need. I think the court system and the prosecutors can establish the minimum fine in their presentations. The minimum fine is taking away something that has developed over the years. I feel this is not necessary. I sincerely recommend to the minister that he look at it from the practical point of view and look at how it's going to affect individuals.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the remarks by those who are members of the legal profession in British Columbia and by those who are not, particularly with respect to minimum fines.

There were one or two other items raised. There has been a minimum fine with respect to the Tobacco Tax Act for some time, and I think some members opposite alluded to that. The minimum fine has been $100. and this would see an increase of the minimum fine to $200 in the less serious cases, if I may put it that way. My colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) spoke with respect to the more serious offences which are also dealt with here, where, quite frankly, I think most of the problem exists: that is where there is deliberate tax evasion through the altering or destruction of records, deceptive entries or failing to collect the tax. Certainly the Ministry of Finance has a role in government, regardless of the party in power, to ensure that the revenue base remains relatively intact. We've spoken of that in here, and our predecessors have spoken of that. The fact remains that because of the significantly lower tax rate in our neighbouring province — and the problem is not restricted to British Columbia alone — we have seen a rather significant increase in the amount of deliberate evasion of taxes. That, I submit, should be of concern to members of both parties, and should be of concern to us because of the loss of tax revenue in terms of what that revenue can do for the people of British Columbia.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), I think it was, alluded to retroactivity. It should be pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that obviously there is a retroactivity; however, it is only to April 6, 1982, which is the day following the introduction of the provincial budget. I wonder if he was referring to some other retroactivity which is lost on me. This, along with a number of other taxation measures, is retroactive to the date of the introduction of the budget, and both parties have followed that process in taxation measures over the years in British Columbia.

I think these amendments will enable us to reach those people who are moving cigarettes on a massive scale, and that is where we are particularly concerned. It's a very massive scale, with cigarettes moving across the border by the truckload. I have heard the comments. Nonetheless, in the interests of the revenue base which is important for the people of this province, I certainly feel we must take this step.

I move second reading of Bill 29.

Motion approved.

[ Page 7614 ]

Bill 29, Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole house for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

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

On section 9.

MR. BARBER: The Social Credit government's so-called restraint program is falling apart. The collapse began when the Premier began contradicting himself and when he contradicted the Minister of Finance. It began when the government was discovered to be a party of wine-guzzlers taking advantage of ministerial expense accounts. It began when people in the press started writing articles such as we saw in the Times-Colonist on Saturday, authored by Jim Hume.

Mr. Hume is a well-known right-wing commentator who has no love for the New Democratic Party, and who has frequently endorsed many of the actions — but not all, it should be said — of the Social Credit government. He certainly rarely endorses anything the New Democrats do. But that's fair enough. At least he's honest about his bias.

Mr. Hume felt compelled to write a whole column entitled "Confusion reigns in Bennett restraint program" in the Times-Colonist of Saturday. When persons who by and large support the Social Credit government editorially feel compelled to author comments of the order of those in Saturday's Times-Colonist, then I think we have increasing evidence of the collapse of the political strategy of Social Credit.

The problem with the bill is the problem with this section. Debating the section — as we have been doing for three days, going into the fourth — is a problem of fairness and practicality. The practical consequences of section 9 include the massive shutdown of hospitals in British Columbia. The practical consequences of this section include the collapse of a health-care system that we have come to appreciate and require in our province. The practical consequence of section 9 is one of the reasons why the Premier's so-called restraint program is falling apart. It's falling apart because of internal contradictions. It's failing apart because of real and publicly understood unfairness. It's falling apart because of the deserved reputation of Social Credit as a government of wine guzzlers at public expense. It falls apart as well because of the deserved reputation of Social Credit as a government of incompetence — witness Seaboard, the Princess Marguerite, the Ministry of Deregulation, and so on. This is provably the most hopelessly inept government that has ever attempted to administer the public interest in British Columbia.

The practical consequences of section 9, however, are most tragically illustrated by an event that occurred this morning in the capital city. Together with my colleague the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew  (Mr. Mitchell), we attended an unprecedented demonstration of concern at the Royal Jubilee Hospital. This morning at the Royal Jubilee Hospital an estimated 1,000 employees — in shifts, so as not to interrupt patient care; during lunch-hours, at their expense, not hospital expense, so as to guarantee that medical supervision would be maintained at the highest level possible — took to the streets of Victoria.  They did so because of the practical consequences of section 9, which we are now debating.

This morning the employees of British Columbia's second-largest hospital — doctors, nurses, lab technicians, radiotherapists and members of the board of directors — took to the streets in record numbers in the capital of British Columbia to stand up and tell the people that there is something fundamentally inhumane about Social Credit and something fundamentally inhumane about the practical consequences of the section which this opposition has been holding up the passage of for the last three, going on four, days. Under the disguise of this section, it is not humane to allow persons to be denied access to cancer clinics, maternity wards, long-term care centres and surgery. When we see what this section does, it is not humane to tolerate a policy which has seen the shutdown of what is now in excess of 1,200 hospital beds across British Columbia.

The so-called restraint program of Social Credit, a key section of which we are debating right now, includes restraining public hospitals and cutting back on health care, while it allows massive expenditures and massive overruns for projects like B.C. Place and northeast coal. There's something inhumane about a government so cold and heartless as to tolerate hospital shutdowns, while it pilots a section like this through the Legislature — at least, attempting to do so under the guise of restraint.

The restraint program of Social Credit is phony; it is hypocritical; it is inconsistent; it is selfish; it is self-serving. And it is not, day by day, doing anything other than losing popular support.

The editorial criticism of Social Credit and its performance in its phony restraint program has been severe. On February 18 it started out not bad. It is almost May 18, and it is collapsing in their faces. Their strategy is serving them badly. Their Premier is serving them very badly. The hysterical, red-faced, arm-waving performances of the member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett) have done enormous damage to the credibility of the so-called restraint program of Social Credit. They got off to a good start on February 18; their polls told them they were winning public acceptance for it. But as the human consequences of the so-called restraint program became more clear, the final consequence was that public support fell away.

If Social Credit started restraining cabinet ministers and their wine-guzzling habits, their personal junkets, they would be more credible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The odd reference to section 9 while a member is canvassing subjects that are not within those guidelines is not in order in debate. The member must make his remarks strictly relevant to section 9 and would well remember that in his continuing remarks.

MR. BARBER: I completely agree, Mr. Chairman.

The practical consequence of section 9 is that when it is enacted this government, through the concurrent powers of the Hospital Act, will be allowed to set the salaries and wages of hospital employees — those few who remain available to the people of British Columbia.

[ Page 7615 ]

The practical consequence of the whole restraint program, an operating principle of which is found in this section, is that Social Credit will have to bear the burden of people falling ill and dying because they cannot get into hospitals.

The president of the B.C. Medical Association, Dr. Ray March, who is, to say the least, not a New Democrat, said publicly just 72 hours ago that as a result of this phony restraint program — restraint applied to hospitals but not to northeast coal or to B.C. Place — citizens of this province will die while awaiting access to public hospitals. Section 9 gives this government awesome authority to impose a program of restraint in the public sector — a program they are not prepared to apply to themselves personally, but a program which they insist will be applied to all of their intended victims.

The primary victim of this program of phony restraint is the health-care system of British Columbia. The primary victim of such restraint is the elderly and the sick, that group of persons who cannot speak for themselves on the floor of this House, but whose advocates were speaking for themselves at the Royal Jubilee Hospital this morning.

It is provably the case that the phony restraint program of Social Credit, under the guise and through the mechanism of section 9, which is the operating section of the bill we're generally debating, is such that human health will deteriorate in British Columbia. The health of B.C. Place and northeast coal will not deteriorate; those projects are getting all the money they want. What are hospitals getting? Far less.

The official opposition is objecting as strenuously as we can to section 9 because this section is the primary instrument of government control over — among other institutions — hospitals and health services. If it were not so, the bill would not be before us and collective bargaining would proceed as usual.

The strategy that the coalition has tried to find an election issue with is blowing up in their faces. On February 18 it didn't look too bad. It's almost May 18 and it's beginning to look pretty darn ridiculous. This section is key to what was the re-election strategy of Social Credit. But they're backing off from it now for obvious reasons. The Premier has said, lo and behold, that he will call the Legislature back into session. Now it may be a reflection of his poor attendance record in this House that he doesn't know we're in session.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, personal allusions of any kind in this debate are out of order, and the member must remain strictly relevant to section 9. The member has been informed repeatedly that we are on section 9 and that he must be strictly relevant, and if he's not going to be strictly relevant to section 9, then he is going to have to take his place and someone who will be relevant will take a place in debate.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I agree entirely.

The Premier said that he was prepared to call the Legislature back into session. The Premier did so while making a comment about this bill and the key section which we're now debating. I don't think it's an improper aspersion on the Premier to ask him — although he's not here — why he would make such a statement. He hasn't debated this section. I wish he would, because he's responsible for it. He, rather than the Minister of Finance, is the primary author.

We charge that through section 9, this government is undermining the guarantees and the quality of health care in British Columbia. We charge that Social Credit is condemning sick people to get sicker longer as the result of the practical application of this section.

This section, in combination with the Hospital Act, is the key means by which Social Credit will be cutting back health and hospital services in British Columbia. The Hospital Act by itself does not give them this power, but section 9 of this bill which we are debating and opposing does.

We oppose section 9 because it is unfair and because the government strategy is totally inconsistent. We have repeatedly asked the Minister of Finance in regard to section 9 to tell us which statements are operative: those of February 18 made by the Premier when he talked about the formulas of 10, 12 and 14 percent, or those of the Minister of Finance when he introduced this bill for second reading. However, subsequent to that statement by the Minister of Finance, the Premier made altogether another statement in this House, and then he made yet another statement outside this House. There are four, and over the weekend we learned there was a fifth statement, and that too contradicts the previous ones. It is that statement which I was mentioning briefly, Mr. Chairman. The Premier has said that he'll call the House back if need be in order to deal with the problems that he has created himself through this bill and, in particular, through the operating device of this bill, which is section 9.

The Minister of Finance, the alleged author of the bill, has consistently refused to answer questions about....

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's not correct. You're wrong again, Charlie.

MR. BARBER: It is provably correct. When it comes to you and your errors on the floor of this House, this opposition is yet to be proved wrong. It is clearly the case that the Premier's statements about 5 percent, the Premier's statements about rollbacks to zero and the Premier's statements outside this House have done nothing but confuse, distort and damage his own government's program, the operating section of which is number 9 in this bill. The Minister of Finance said one thing in second reading. The Premier came along some hours later and said something else. The two statements do not coincide. Therefore one or the other of them must be operative; one or the other of them must not be. It's the only logical posture.

For his political purposes, this minister has refused to even discuss the contradiction which is obvious even to a guy like Jim Hume. Jim Hume ordinarily supports Social Credit; he certainly rarely supports the NDP. When Mr. Hume, who doesn't bother to conceal his biases — good for him; he's open about it — is compelled to write the kind of editorial he did on the weekend, then surely even this minister knows that something is wrong with the goofy stories, the blatant contradictions and the internal inconsistencies of the fiction that Social Credit is trying to feed people about its real intentions. We argue that the real intent is to get re-elected at any cost. We argue that their intent is to go for the megaprojects at any cost. We argue that their intent is to push through, against all rational opposition, a section like this at any cost.

Apparently they don't care about what happens in the lives of sick and dying citizens who are denied access to our hospitals, because they're cutting back on our hospitals while they're prepared to pay anything for northeast coal and B.C. Place. No government that inhumane is fit to remain in office. No government with priorities as cold and twisted as that is fit

[ Page 7616 ]

to remain in office. Section 9 should be withdrawn. Section 9 is the mechanism which allows that cold-hearted coalition, through its own force and the coincident force of the Hospital Act, to impair, reduce and fundamentally compromise the qualities of and access to hospitals and health care in British Columbia. No citizen concerned about the quality of health care in this province should remain unaware of the desperate impact of section 9 on the architecture of health care. No one who cares about the issue of health care should be unaware that section 9 is the most compassionless and damning evidence of what Social Credit is really up to in its desperate attempt to get back into office next time.

As an aside, one can point out that the Socreds know that they're down in the polls. There are all sorts of reasons for that. Section 9 is one of the reasons they are going down even further in the polls. It is inconsistent; it is arbitrary; and it is deceitful in that no specific figures are named, even though the Premier said that figures would be named in his announcement of February 18. He even named the figures during the course of that announcement. Deceit aside, what is now clear is that this section will be used, and is already being used, to cripple the health-care system of British Columbia. That is completely unacceptable.

We charge that this section is unworkable. We advise the government that every labour expert you have consulted has told you the same thing in private. Some of the leading labour-management negotiators and arbitrators and some of the leading academics in the field have told the government the same thing about this section. It is arbitrary, capricious, entirely political and entirely unworkable. We are always entitled to debate the practicality and workability of any section of any bill, and we argue now, as we argued before and will continue to argue until we get a satisfactory reply, that this section will not work, cannot work and should not be made to work. It is simply unfair, and either this government has a sense of fair play and is prepared to bring it to bear and into force, or they haven't and they won't. It is unfair to give this cabinet the power, arbitrarily, to issue compensation guidelines to a very small percentage of the working people of this province and at the same time do nothing whatever to deal with the human circumstances that will be caused as a result.

This section doesn't deal with interest rates or foreclosures, bankruptcies or unemployment; all it does is give Social Credit the right — arbitrarily, in cabinet, in secret, without reference to any public process — to set wage controls on the backs of its own employees. They are imposing wage controls while at the same time they are abandoning rent controls. They are imposing wage controls on their own employees, but not on anyone else. They are imposing wage controls through this section in a way that is so fundamentally arbitrary, narrow and unfair, that they are offending the sense of fair play that most people in this province have.

If the government doesn't find a sense of fair play within itself, at least it can look elsewhere to find it. They can look to the membership of their own party if they like, because lots of those folks in my riding, who are themselves public servants and who know what the human consequences of this section will be, are coming to us and saying: "We're not NDPers; we're Socreds. We're not going to vote for you, but we sure as heck might stay home next time and not vote for them either, because what they're doing to us is unfair. It is unjust. It hurts us in a way that cannot be rationally defended."

Maybe within a narrow range of public opinion, it is still acceptable to attack public servants. Social Credit is always and traditionally has been willing to attack minority groups. They've always done that. It's their pattern; it's their tradition. It's guys like those who denied the Japanese the vote and put out their hysterical advertisements during the Second World War. They've always been happy to do that, and now they're doing it again.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Section 9, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARBER: Don't get twitchy, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm chatting to the Chair, hoping that we can stay on section 9.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: That doesn't bother me. I was hoping the member for Kamloops might pay some attention.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Oh, you don't like that either. Will you tell him so?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, we address the Chair in this chamber, and we are currently on section 9. I draw that again to the attention of the member currently speaking, so that he knows that we are on section 9 and its strictly relevant aspects in committee.

MR. BARBER: As a reminder, I've put it on a sheet of paper, Mr. Chairman. It's right in front of me. We're on section 9 and we're debating the human and practical consequences of the wage controls that Social Credit is imposing on public employees. We're debating the practical consequence of a program that is seeing the shutdown of hospital beds and the undermining of health care.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, you are wrong. We are debating — and I think maybe it would be appropriate if we read the strictly relevant.... I would commend to the member that we have already discussed the principle in second reading, and now we are on the "strictly relevant" section. Otherwise, hon. member, there is no point in having a second reading of a bill to cover all the various aspects which the member is now going into debate on. I'm sure it's not necessary for the Chair to read the section to the members, but if you take a look at that particular section and apply the "strictly relevant" aspect to it, you will see that by straying, for example, into health care or other aspects, you are not within its confines and are straying more into discussion best canvassed in second reading.

The member continues on section 9, being strictly relevant thereto.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree entirely.

Among others, the employees who will be affected by this section are hospital workers. This is provably the case. Among others, the victims of this so-called restraint program will be citizens who formerly had access to hospitals. They are victims because hospitals will have to lay them off; they

[ Page 7617 ]

are victims because of the policy of this government; and they are victims because of the impact of this section. Mr. Chairman, I think that's totally relevant. This section gives the cabinet power to set compensation stabilization guidelines....

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, in order to assist the member, who is once again caught up in his own rhetoric, I should point out that the section which is before us in committee, as you observed a few minutes ago, deals with compensation guidelines. It would take a considerable stretch of the imagination to relate this to every other aspect of the public sector in the province of British Columbia, including — and I only use it as an example — the amount of money which might be transferred to a hospital or to a municipality in terms of the expenditure restraint which is now coming into place throughout the province of British Columbia. This is the compensation guideline, as you have observed, Mr. Chairman — part 2, section 9. It has absolutely nothing to do with the expenditure restraint, which is undoubtedly going to be appropriate at some other point in discussion of the bill.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, when we all realize that approximately 85 percent of the money in the hospitals is for wages, I think it would be stretching our minds to the limit to think that cutting back on that 85 percent expenditure wouldn't have some effect on the kinds of services that are offered through medical institutions. I think it's completely relevant that the cutbacks in hospitals can be tied to section 9 of this bill.

Further to the point of order, in second reading we, of course, discussed the broad principles of the legislation. In committee we discuss the principle of each section. It has to be a principle that's relevant to the section; but you cannot rule, Mr. Chairman, I submit, that we can't talk about the principle of a section. We can't talk about the other broad principles of the bill, but the principles of the section we have to; otherwise there'd be no discussion or debate at all.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On the same point of order, and certainly not attempting to be repetitious, Mr. Chairman, this section has nothing to do with the amount of money which is transferred from one level of government to a group of public-sector activities, be it hospitals, municipalities or whatever. It sets out the guidelines for the amount to be paid to individuals, and that's a very clear point which somehow seems to have been lost on at least two members opposite, in terms of the context of this section.

MR. BARBER: On the same point of order, with respect, the comments of the Minister of Finance are political and have nothing to do with the rules. Could I draw his attention and yours, Mr. Chairman, to the interpretation section of the bill we are now debating, because I think you'll find that it is through this section that our debate on section 9 is totally relevant.

Page 2 of Bill 28 describes a public-sector employer, and you will note that the very same phrase appears in section 9. A public-sector employer is defined under subsection (h) of the interpretation section: "...a hospital as defined in the Hospital Act or the Hospital Insurance Act which receives funds from another public-sector employer..." — that being the government itself. When we look at section 9 of the bill which we're currently debating, you will see, Mr. Chairman, that 9(l) reads quite clearly: "The executive council shall issue compensation stabilization guidelines to stabilize the compensation plans of the public-sector employers...."

Mr. Chairman, the minister's comment is just absolutely immaterial. We have a definition of a public-sector employer, and that very phrase is found in section 9. We are now inquiring into the practical consequences of the government's own definition for that public-service employer, hospitals.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Good points of order were made by all members who spoke. Nonetheless, the Chair is bound by our standing orders and the key word in section 61(2) is "strictly" — "strictly relevant." It would be virtually impossible for us to continue debate in this chamber in committee if we were to allow the same broad scope of debate that was permitted in second reading. There would then be little purpose, if any at all, to meet in committee to discuss the strictly relevant aspects of each section. I would commend that to each and every member.

MR. LEA: On a point of order. After listening to you, Mr. Chairman, I can't do anything but agree with you. When you say "strictly relevant," could you tell me exactly what it is that we can discuss under this section that would be strictly relevant?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is not appropriate for members to enter into discussion with the Chair. It is merely appropriate for the Chair to try to adhere to the rules that are before us.

MR. LEA: I'm not doing that. I'm just asking for help. If we can't talk about the principle of section 9, then what would be strictly relevant? Can we discuss whether you dot the i's, cross the t's? We have to know what is strictly relevant. I don't want Mr. Chairman to fall into the trap of repeating "strictly relevant" without having something in his own mind as to exactly what that means. It's only too easy to keep using the term "strictly relevant" without even in your own mind having firmly in place what you mean.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member makes a good point. If members will open Bill 28 and read section 9 carefully, we will see that this is what the Chair is bound by. It is the strict relevance to what is spelled out before us in section 9, and we cannot permit ourselves to stray into the principle, which has already been canvassed in second reading.

MR. BARBER: The interpretation section of the bill itself makes it quite clear that hospitals are designated as public-service employers. Section 9 allows the government to impose wage controls on public-service employers; and hospitals and public-service employers are one and the same, for the purposes of the application of this section. That being the case, we're concerned about the practical consequences of the application of section 9. That's all there is to it, Mr. Chairman. It is no broader than that. It is as strictly and narrowly relevant as that.

The practical consequences of applying section 9 to a public-service employer called a hospital is a consequence we do not accept. It is a consequence that is cold and inhumane and heartless, one that the official opposition rejects totally. It is a consequence that no decent or compassionate

[ Page 7618 ]

government would allow even for an instance. We are not debating the principle of the whole bill; we are debating the practical application of section 9. The practical application of that section is to allow this government to impose a phony restraint program and to impose, as it turns out, a tragically effective cutback program on public hospitals. It's phony when it comes to northeast coal and B.C. Place and wine-guzzling; it is tragically effective when it comes to hospitals. This is the inconsistency of the government's posture. The government told us that the interpretation section is to include hospitals; the opposition tells the government that there's something wrong with that. There's something wrong with the priorities of the government, And with any section of any bill that would see the deterioration in health care that is already underway in British Columbia.

Social Credit stands condemned for its heartlessness, its coldness, its inhumanity and its unwillingness to assign the proper priorities to health care. For that reason, among many others, we have been opposing this section for the last four days; and we will continue to oppose this section until it is withdrawn and until government adopts a policy of fair play for hospitals and public servants.

The Socred strategy to impose wage controls has begun to fall apart because people now see and understand the connection between that program and the collapse of hospital care in British Columbia. It is falling apart because the people of British Columbia will not tolerate having such vicious cutbacks imposed on hospitals, and they increasingly comprehend what section 9 means in terms of applying that rule of thumb and rule of law to hospitals and their employees. We don't accept it; doctors, nurses and other health service personnel don't accept it; and the great majority of the people of British Columbia I think don't accept it either. It may still be narrowly popular to attack public servants. It is not popular or wise, and most of all it is not humane, to attack the health system of British Columbia.

The tragic outcome of section 9 is that this will give the government the power to continue to undermine health care. That is an unacceptable power which they have no business asking for in the first place and which no opposition has any business granting to them. We will not grant it today or any other day.

MR. LEVI: Well, the minister is back. He looks as though he had a drink out there — a drink of water, that is — to wash the ashes out of his mouth from the debris that this bill is creating.

To be strictly relevant, Mr. Chairman, the definition of relevancy as far as the minister.... I just want to quote the minister on Thursday, May 13, and then move on to some of the observations that he made. He said:

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 themselves 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.

Mr. Chairman, we got that from the minister. The minister talked about the briefs.

Earlier on, following the announcement of the whole restraint question by the Premier, the Ministry of Finance issued a compensation bulletin number 2 called the "Stabilization Program Consultation." On page 2 he says: "Draft regulations will be issued by March 31. Requests for all information on the program in general and on the consultative process in particular should be directed to information services, Ministry of Finance, Government Street, Victoria." Having read that, I just hied over to the new Ministry of Finance section and said to them: "Can I have a copy of the draft regulations as stated in the bulletin number 2?" I was told that they were not ready and that I couldn't have a copy of the regulations. However, they said: "If you like, we can give you something else." So I said: "Well, anything you've got will be appreciated." So they gave me five sheets of paper, and it says....

MR. BARRETT: "Write your own."

MR. LEVI: No, au contraire, it says: "Matrix Guide to Procedures under the Compensation Stabilization Act."

Mr. Chairman, for your benefit, for the benefit of my colleagues and for the minister, let me give you a definition of the word "matrix." I had a little trouble with this word; I couldn't really spell it, but I'm going to try this. It says: "Something within which something else originates or develops." I'm going to restate that because it's very important. "Something within which something else originates or develops." That's the first clue we've had with respect to this section that the minister was talking about on May 13 — he's been talking about it many times — when he said: "Go and look at the consultative process that we have. We actually urge people...."

Mr. Chairman, I would refer the minister, if he's interested in edification, to a very interesting article that was in the Times-Colonist on May 16 by William Safire. It deals with what was referred to as "Origin of the Snake Check." The minister may not know about that term. When I was a soldier, we didn't have a "snake check"; we used to refer to it as a "scorpion check." When we were in the Far East, before we put our boots on we tapped them out to see if there are any scorpions in there. We didn't want to get any surprises. They use the same kind of terminology in America and call it the snake check." I've been doing a snake check or a scorpion check on this legislation over the weekend to find out just what's there.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I haven't stopped doing snake checks since 1945, but I did a snake check on this one.

The minister made reference to the fact that there were a number of briefs submitted, and there were. For the minister's edification, there were some 29 briefs submitted. Some of them really weren't briefs; they were just little notes saying, "Good on you, Mr. Minister," and things like that. As a matter of fact, except for two briefs, every communication to the ministry had only four pages.

There was one which I think is very significant to this debate. It was submitted by the British Columbia Health Association. On page 1 they make a direct reference to the way the program is introduced and what you do with the regulations. This is a letter to the Minister of Finance, March 12, 1982, signed by Dr. Hugh McDonald, president of the B.C. Health Association. In the second-last paragraph he says: "This association is also concerned that inadvertent,

[ Page 7619 ]

ill-conceived applications of the program would result in a loss of valuable and experienced management people from the health-care institutions of British Columbia."

We've had some points of order before in this House as to the relevance of the health question.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

MR. LEVI: We have a new chairman. Where's Charlie Barber?

Dr. McDonald's statement is completely relevant to what we're debating under section 9. Later on in their letter to the Minister of Finance, they said: "While the announcement of general guidelines for expenditure is the prerogative of the government, specific guidelines about compensation encroach on the historical and legal responsibilities of the board of trustees. This interference is particularly evident in the proposed directive mentioned by the Premier regarding stricter guidelines for specific senior management positions." That's within the health-care system.

You have to remember the chronology of what took place. The Minister of Finance made mention on May 13 of the fact that there had been consultation with people in the province. Frankly, that is a lot of nonsense. What were they consulting about? They were consulting about the sentence that had already been passed, not the nature of why the legislation was brought in. Everything had been set up. They moved in. They brought in the ground rules, and then they said: "We'd like to consult with you." Here's a piece of consultation particularly related to the health system, in which the minister was warned as early as March 12, 1982, that "inadvertent, ill-conceived application of the program would result in a loss of valuable and experienced management people from the health-care institutions." He knew that two months ago. He also knew two months ago that while the general guidelines were the prerogative of the government, "specific guidelines about compensation encroach on the historical and legal responsibilities of the board of trustees." That's the very issue we are debating on this section. This principle is the question of the guidelines.

The minister keeps getting to his feet and telling us that he's answered the question. Well, we didn't get the question answered last week. The week before, the Premier moved the goalposts, and on Saturday the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) also moved the goalposts; he gave his version of what the guidelines were going to be. And here we are debating this section. Just what is going on with this section?

As my colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) said, what do you do in respect to a debate that you're involved in over a period of three days, when you see a headline in the paper which says "Confusion Reigns in Bennett's Restraint Program ? That's it; it does. Great confusion reigns. In the midst of this confusion, when nobody is looking after the store, literally thousands of people are being laid off as a result of the restraint program. It's happening out there every day; everybody knows. Every MLA in this chamber has received letters from people urging us to urge the government to do something about the unemployment problem. They particularly urge us to do something about the unemployment created as a result of the restraint program, particularly in relation to the health system. Yet after three days the minister has not said anything.

The article in the Times-Colonist ends in an indication to the government by the author when he says: "It isn't possible, is it, that politically you want us confused and in a bewildered position of confrontation? Maybe you shouldn't answer." That's the last thing, addressed to the Premier.

What have you done out there? What have you created? The minister is adding to the chaos that exists over there by his complete inability to answer the questions put to him in respect to these guidelines. He simply won't answer them. What's happening? He's being preempted all over the place. He's being preempted by the Premier; he's being preempted by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) who now wants to give his version of what's going on. The point is that out there, people do want to know what's going on.

What has he really said to us with respect to the guidelines? On Thursday, May 13 he was talking about the briefs again, that those briefs were taken into account in the preparation of the legislation. We heard from trade unions. The minister should tell us what they said to him. I'm looking at the list he received. He got two pages from the brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, two pages from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and that's it. I don't see any other labour unions there.

What did the minister get from people who were concerned? Tragically and ironically so, particularly with respect to the health system, he got advice which he completely ignored. He completely ignored the advice of the British Columbia Health Association, which is a preeminent association in this province in respect to the administration and delivery of the health system. They warned him. What did he say to them when they said: "This association is also concerned that inadvertent, ill-conceived applications of the program will result in the loss of valuable and experienced management people"? Not only has it resulted in that; it has also resulted in the loss, as a negative byproduct, of literally thousands of jobs in that whole health system. Part of that is because of his inability to tell us just what he has in mind in respect to the guidelines. He hasn't told us that at all.

What did he tell the B.C. Health Association when they said: "While the announcement of general guidelines and expenditures is the prerogative of the government, specific guidelines about compensation encroaches on the historical and legal responsibility of the board of trustees"? How is that government ever going to be able to get anybody to serve as a trustee on a hospital board, having done to them what they've done in this respect? Here they get sound, experienced advice on how to deal with the health-care system of this province, and they've completely ignored it. The upshot is not only chaos in terms of the delivery of this bill and chaos in the province; what is worse and, frankly, more dangerous is that we have absolute chaos in the health-delivery system of this province. That is dangerous; and it's unforgivable in terms of the inability of that minister to stand up and tell us what you mean when you are talking about guidelines, without all this fatuous nonsense you keep repeating which doesn't answer the question at all. We know you're in a mess with the government, because the Premier took the ball away from you. The Minister of Education is having a little dribble with it, and you're standing on the sidelines.

As my colleagues have said, it's not our intention to let this section go. Some years ago we dealt with a similar kind of distasteful section in another piece of legislation relating to the health-care system: the arbitration section in relation to the medical plan when they wanted to get at the doctors. Long

[ Page 7620 ]

and studied debate went on for some days, finally until the government withdrew the section. That's what's needed here: the long and studied debate. The minister has banked very heavily in his speeches on the question of consultation. I put it to you that there was no consolation whatsoever. There were no discussions about regulations. There was certainly correspondence regarding regulations, which the minister proceeded to absolutely ignore. He set out to destroy what is referred to in a very venerable way in this province, because we've had our wars with the collective bargaining system.

They talk about the historic and legal responsibilities. That's what's being destroyed in here. The minister hasn't answered that, partly, I think, because he doesn't understand what principles are being destroyed in terms of the collective bargaining system in this legislation.

He said in March that the regulations were going to be ready on March 31. He put that in a bulletin. When I went to get them they weren't available. Here we are in the middle of May, and they're still not available. Why did he say that the regulations were going to be available? It is not usual for this government to produce regulations in respect to a piece of legislation at the same time that a bill is brought in, but he said it. He said: "We'll make the regulations available." Where are the regulations? If he is going to tell me that this piece of gymnastic equipment which he calls a matrix....

The matrix is issued as a general guide only. For the details of the seven basic steps and requirements listed in the matrix you've got to refer to the act. This is it. That's what I was able to pick up. They've got the whole ball of wax here, but the regulations aren't there. This is of no value to anyone who is debating this bill. Without knowing exactly where the goalposts are going to rest, we will never know what the application of this bill will do in terms of its basic intention or in respect to this regulation section.

I would be interested if the minister would do us a favour and table us the numbers in respect to his version of what the regulations call for. What is he talking about? He's had three days. Surely he is now prepared to put this in a ministerial statement which states very specifically what he means by this section. That is the important thing. Is he prepared to stand by what he says?

I think we've demolished the consultation aspect of this, which he offered up as an excuse for the veracity of the legislation and for the implementation of the regulations. Yet he was cautioned strongly by the health association: "Don't do what you're setting out to do, because you're going to destroy the system. You're going to destroy the system, because you're going to scare off employees. We will not be able to hire the people who can administer, and gradually the system will crumble." We've seen it happen. The system is crumbling. My colleague from Victoria gave a rather graphic description of what took place in Victoria, which is usually considered a rather sleepy suburban area. There were people protesting right on the edge of the minister's constituency.

What is he talking about? That is basically what we want to know, because the onset of this legislation has created great panic out there among people who are working. We have seen the beginnings of the destruction of a health system that took over 30 years to put together. Never in such a short period of time has any government taken the health system of this province to the brink of almost total destruction and, what is even worse, a loss of public support and trust in that system. That is the dangerous thing about it. If this legislation and this section which deals with the regulatory aspect of it had any merit to it, then people would be paying attention. The minister is on the spot. He has to get up and he has to tell us how this section will be interpreted. We know what the effect of this section is at the moment. How is he going to interpret it? Has he decided to take another look at it? Has he decided to heed the advice he got in what he considers to be a consultative process, when he got some briefs from interested people around the province and particularly from the health association? That is what he has to do.

We have a lot of time, because we have an enormous amount of time invested in the development of our health system in this province — over 30 years. In the space of 30 days we have seen reduction, destruction and lowering of morale in a system that was the most important system in this province in terms of human beings. If the minister is prepared to ignore that, then the government ignores it at its peril, because that is the beginning. How often do we hear members of the medical profession get up and say the kinds of things that Dr. March said? If one of us over here had said it, there would have been a scandalous outbreak. But because it was done by a professional who works in the system, who knows what the effect of this restraint legislation is, nobody said a word, because they knew he was right.

That is the total question we are dealing with here — the credibility of the government and its ability to bring in a piece of legislation. We've listened for the last three days to the minister. We had a rather fatuous reply from the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), but nobody else has got up. They don't want to defend what they maintain is a keystone of what they consider to be the economic recovery of this province: putting people out of work. The only thing they've learned from Reagan is that we'll practise Reaganomics, we'll create more unemployment, and eventually we'll wrestle inflation to the ground. The only thing that they've wrestled to the ground right now is the health-care system. It's on the ground and they're trampling on it. Part of the blame lies directly at the feet of the Minister of Finance, who, as he rushed to bring in a piece of legislation which he probably knew nothing about until the Premier announced it, cannot now tell us the basic guidelines. There are basic guidelines — not just because it's the health system, but because people have to plan their lives in terms of what their expectations can be in respect to the money they take home. That's all gone. Everything is up in the air. That's the kind of chaos that this legislation has created. It's made even more chaotic by the minister's inability to give us the facts.

I don't consider what the minister said in terms of the consultative process to be worth anything, because everything was settled before they got to writing the briefs. They knew where they were going, and they're moving relentlessly towards that end. They're going to try and ram it through here. Well, you're not going to ram it through this House. We'll have to stay here for days and days and days until you get up and you tell us. We know that things are only getting worse out there, and that's terrible. You've not offered one rational explanation of this section. That he has not done, Mr. Chairman — no rational explanation at all. If you can't do that, then you had better turn it over to somebody else, because your performance in terms of the delivery of this bill and comments in relation to the questions that have been asked has been abysmal.

This is the destruction of a piece of legislation that was worthy of destruction at its inception. But it's also destroying

[ Page 7621 ]

the minister in the process. His credibility is on the line here, not just the credibility of the government.

Mr. Chairman, I've got to congratulate you. You are the best Chairman we've had in that chair for the last three days. You have exhibited skill and understanding. When debate is going on, you listen carefully and you keep very quiet. We're indeed very fortunate that you're in the chair.

My request of the minister is to ask what impact the consultative process had on his drafting of this bill when they didn't get to put in their briefs until six weeks after the plan had been announced by the Premier. Did you pay any attention to any of the observations? Did be particularly pay attention to the people in the health-care system? I ask the minister that. Did you pay any attention to the briefs that you got? You cannot tell us, because I would not accept that this list — that's the list of the briefs that you got.... Some of them are not available; they're in the hands of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), and we can't get hold of them. But those we can get hold of — one-page and two-page.... We'll address ourselves to the main brief from the health association. Did you have a discussion with them? Did anybody in your department call them up and say: "Listen, what you're saying here is a very serious critique of our legislation"? Did you have that kind of a discussion with them? Because if you're trying to foist on this House the suggestion that you had consultation with the kind of stuff that was submitted, it's not an argument that is credible in any way.

Going back to the health association: did you have a discussion with the health association people when they pointed out in their brief the impact of what could happen to you? You've got a copy of the brief. It was sent to you on March 12, 1982. To refresh your memory, I'll remind you that they said: "The association is also concerned that inadvertent, ill-conceived applications of the program would result in a loss of valuable and experienced management people from the health-care institutions in British Columbia." It's a major citation saying to you: "This is what's going to happen if you're not careful." Later on, in respect to the regulations, they said: "Regulations should not detract from the boards' responsibility to provide a high standard of care and treatment for the patient." That's what you've done: taken away the power of the boards, the volunteers, the people that serve on the boards. Did you discuss that with them? It becomes very difficult to understand what you mean when you say there was consultation. I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, that there was absolutely no consultation, and it is unacceptable the way he is presenting it.

He's on the hook to defend this bill, and so far he hasn't defended it in any way or offered any answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, with the consent of the committee, the member for Cowichan-Malahat wishes to make an introduction? Is it agreed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm sorry to interrupt the debate to do this, but I felt that I owed it to the 20 students from Brentwood College who are sitting in the gallery together with their teacher, Mr. McLean, to welcome them.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I think that if the galleries were full and if we had television cameras in this House so that the public could see what's going on here, they would be shocked. For three days we have been discussing section 9 of Bill 28.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please do so.

MR. LEA: Section 9 has no details to it. Section 9 doesn't tell us what is going to happen after this section is passed in the Legislature. It doesn't tell us what the ceiling is going to be for wage raises. It doesn't tell us what the floor is going to be. It doesn't tell us anything. All it does is tell us that we're going to be giving the cabinet the authority to make those decisions. All the cabinet wants us to do is pass section 9, and they'll take it from there.

On February 18, when the Premier made his announcement about this program, he gave us some goalposts. Since then he's taken them back. They call that changing the goalposts, and in this case, in midstream.

MS. SANFORD: That's hard to do.

MR. LEA: It is hard to do. That's why people are so confused.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What are we voting for or against here? It is whether we should give cabinet permission to set any guidelines through regulations that they feel they want to set. What has been the hint from the government as to the depth of those guidelines? Are they going to be a 14 percent ceiling, or is there going to be an actual cut in the wages offered? Briefly, I'd like the members of this committee to take a look at sections 22 and 29 of this same bill. Those two sections again allow this government to do anything they want. The Premier said about this section: "If this doesn't work out the way I want, I'm going to call the Legislature back, and we as the government will ram through what we want to do." The Premier doesn't have to do that if we pass sections 9, 22 and 29. They can do any darn thing they want in the cabinet room: rollbacks, cutbacks, higher ceilings, lower floors.

This has been a story that we have witnessed over six years by this government. The first move they made was the one where they centralized most things into the cabinet room; I think it was the government services act. Every piece of legislation that this government has brought in has taken away from the democratic process in one way or another, either taking powers away from this chamber and putting them in the cabinet room, or taking powers away from the school boards, the hospital boards, the municipal councils and non-profit societies. A piece of legislation hasn't come through this House in six years that hasn't taken power away from different groups in society. Why would a government want to do that? Only the government can answer that, and the minister won't talk. The minister won't get up and tell us exactly what's going to happen when this passes. And it will pass. We say that we can stop it, but when it comes right down to it, we know we can't. In the end, this section and this bill will pass, and the government will go into the cabinet room and they'll set them any place they want, from 5 percent, to 10 percent, to 14 percent.

The minister argues that this section has nothing to do with hospitals.

[ Page 7622 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I didn't say that.

MR. LEA: Oh, the minister didn't say that. Well, he kept calling for us to be relevant and stick to section 9, because he said that section 9 would have nothing to do with the quality of health care. At the same time, if section 9 passes, there's going to have to be a lot of layoffs in the health-care system, but the minister insists that's got nothing to do with health care.

I think we have to discuss the principle of this section. From the government's point of view, it is that if this section passes, they will be able to cut back or limit to some degree the wages of the public service. They say they want to do that because they would like to stop inflation. They'd like to reduce and limit inflation, and that's why they want section 9 passed. How are they going to do that? They say they're going to do that by limiting or cutting back the wages of public employees. What would happen in the economy if that was done? Limiting the wages of public employees means that public employees have less money to spend in the economy. We'd all agree with that. We're not talking now about the savings the government would make; we're talking about what would happen in the economy. So if we limit, curtail or cut back on the money to public employees, they have less money to spend in the economy. By so doing, the government is saying they'd like to put less of a demand on the goods and services in our economy, therefore hoping to bring down the prices to match this new, lessened demand. In other words, what they're trying to do is to bring about further recession. That's their economic plan: if they can put less money into the marketplace and into the economy, then they will lessen demand for British Columbia goods and services and therefore bring down the price of goods. That's what they're saying.

At the same time, the government is saying to the federal government: "Why don't you bring in some sort of taxing policy that will bring about economic recovery?" They say that's what they're trying to do, too; they say that what they desire to do is to stimulate the economy and bring some sort of economic stimulus to the economy of British Columbia. Yet how can they do that, Mr. Speaker, when they want to take money out of the marketplace to purchase goods and services? I think it's incumbent, Mr. Chairman, that the minister, because he is the Minister of Finance as well as the minister who is bringing in this legislation and section 9, explain to us exactly how they can bring in legislation designed to further bring about recession and at the same time have some sort of economic recovery program. You realize, Mr. Chairman, don't you, that it's an impossibility. You can't do both at the same time.

What this section does is take money out of every local economy in the province of British Columbia. It means that there isn't as much money for working people to spend in the small-business community shops; it means that there won't be as much money for people to pay the high interest rates on their mortgages. I just renewed my second mortgage the other day at 20.75 percent.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Double. It was 10.25 percent.

The government is saying that if we pass section 9, it's somehow going to have something to do with lessening inflation, that it's going to be good for us as British Columbians. At the very time when government should be stimulating the economy in every way possible, they are causing recession, in trying to bring down the price of goods and trying to curb inflation, by having an anti-recovery program. It doesn't make sense, and I think that the government owes it to the Legislature — and to you, Mr. Chairman, as a backbencher and as an ordinary member like ourselves — to tell us how it's going to work.

How is it going to help Prince George to have less money in the Prince George economy than there presently is? There is already 20 percent unemployment in Prince George, and section 9 will cause further unemployment. Further unemployment will cause less money in the Prince George economy. Less money in the Prince George economy will mean that more small businesses will close down. It's a domino effect.

AN HON. MEMBER: It hurts the MLAs.

MR. LEA: Yes, it hurts the MLAs. I don't believe there is one MLA in here who isn't honestly concerned about the people and the economy in the riding he represents. I just don't believe that. I don't believe the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) wants unemployment in his riding; I don't believe he wants a bad and sick economy. I don't believe there is anybody here who does. Yet because of partisan reasons, backbenchers are going to vote for a section — specifically section 9 — which is going to hurt the economy in their own regions. I know there is nobody in here who would do that consciously, purposefully, but they can do it accidentally by not querying their own government as to exactly what it means. What's it going to do for the regions of this province that we all represent? Is it going to help or is it going to hurt?

You see, it is very easy, Mr. Chairman, through sections like section 9, to attack public employees, lay the blame on them and say that they are the cause of inflation. Too much spending by government is the cause of inflation. Already too many people believe that, so it is easy to believe. I have been in the back bench, and I know that there is a tendency, when your own government brings in a bill, not to examine it thoroughly, not to really think about it, but to trust them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Trust them?

MR. LEA: That goes without saying. But I warn all you government backbenchers that this particular piece of legislation, especially section 9, is going to hurt the communities you live in and your friends and neighbours. It is not going to help anybody. It is going to bring about cuts in health care and educational services. It is going to hurt the small business community. It is going to hurt everybody in the community, because you cannot hurt sections of a community, like this section of the bill is going to, without hurting everybody in that community.

This is not the time to further aid the recessionary downturn. This is a time to stimulate the economy. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), when he rose in the budget debate, said to the minister: "I think what you are doing, Mr. Minister, is practising neo-Keynesian economics." All neo-Keynesian economics says is that when you are in a recession, government has an obligation and a duty to

[ Page 7623 ]

stimulate the economy. It doesn't say that you have an obligation to dampen the economy. It doesn't say that wherever you can you take bucks out of the economy. The small business people, when they get a dollar in their till, don't know if that dollar comes from the private- or public-sector worker. All they know is that they've got another dollar in their till. It means that they can maybe meet their high interest payments at the end of the month. It means they may be able to pay their staff and not lay someone off.

MR. SEGARTY: They may not be able to pay their taxes.

MR. LEA: That is absolutely correct. We are not advocating higher taxes. What we are advocating is a different priority of spending by the government.

The minister is fond of comparing the macroeconomics of a province to an individual household. Let's compare the individual household and the economy of the province and see if any household would be dumb enough to bring in section 9 on themselves. Let's compare the province to the household. You are a household in Prince George. You have decided, because you want to do a capital expenditure project around your home because you need it — or at least you want it.... It might be for recreational purposes. It might be a swimming pool; it might be a garage that you need to protect your vehicle from the snow in Prince George. You have decided that that is what you want to do, but somebody in your family loses their job. In other words, it is hard times, like it is in the province, What do you do in hard times? Do you say: "Regardless of all the consequences, we're going to go ahead with the garage or the swimming pool, even when we might not have enough money to operate our family in terms of food, clothing and transportation" — the things that you absolutely have to have? That is what the government is doing. They are saying: "Those essential services, like adequate health care, must suffer because we want to build the swimming pool." They call it the B.C. stadium. They say: "We don't care whether we have proper education for our children. It's not a priority for us in spending because we want to put money into northeast coal." There is a time for northeast coal, B.C. stadiums, B.C. Place and Pier B-C, but it surely isn't when you can't put food on the table.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again I will ask the hon. member to be strictly relevant to section 9.

MR. LEA: That is what I am doing. I am talking about the cause and effect of section 9 on the economy of this province, and what's going to happen. For the minister to sit there and not get up and explain from his point of view, as the Minister of Finance and the fiscal agent for this province, what this section is going to do to the economy and the people of this province is a little bit hard to take. We know section 9 is going to harm the economy. What we are asking is how much. Are we going to have a football stadium at the expense of some baby's life? Does that make sense? Are we going to have a tunnel going through a mountain for northeast coal at the expense of a year of education in a child's life? Are those the priorities? We're not saying: "Go out and gouge the taxpayers." We are saying: "Assess your priorities of spending." We said that in our Let's Get to Work program.

In our Let's Get to Work program we on this side of the House said: let's go for economic recovery. They say: let's go for recession; that's how to cure inflation. We say: to cure inflation, start building a healthy economy. Let's get some jobs. Let's get some more tax dollars coming into the coffers from an expanded economy, as opposed to taking the same amount of tax dollars out of a fading economy and driving it further into the hole. I don't think there's anyone in this chamber who doesn't know that what I'm saying is the truth. We know it. The minister knows it. But for political purposes they are determined to go this way. Mr. Chairman, you have to ask yourself: should you be a minister of the Crown and make that kind of political decision, especially when you're Minister of Finance, at the expense of the economy of the province you’ve sworn to serve?

The member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) is smirking because he doesn't understand. I ask everybody to forgive him, including the people in his own constituency, because he just doesn't understand. But I know you do, Mr. Chairman, because you've had some experience in other administrative bodies — school boards at the local level. You know what budgeting is all about. You also have a little bit of an idea of what the economy is all about. You know what I'm saying is the truth: that section 9 will hurt the economy, because it's designed to bring about a deeper recession than we already have.

When they say they're going to restrain government spending in order to somehow decrease the inflation in the province, we have a right to ask: how will that work? But the minister won't get up and say how it will work, because there is no explanation. This bill is designed to add to the recession we're already having. They're hoping to cut down demand for goods and services, for the things we manufacture and supply in this province.

This government cannot make the difference. They can't understand how the budget of the province of British Columbia is an instrument to be used in the general economy of the province. They think they're separate. They think the economy out there is somehow all private sector and that the budget of the province is the public-sector side. They don't understand that the policies of government determine whether or not you're going to have a healthy private sector. It's not a case of saying they're going to set the proper climate and then doing nothing. They think they can honestly get into government and say: "You know, we really like business people. Isn't that a good climate? Now it will pick up." Because they have that very narrow view of what the world is all about, they bring in section 9, which will go a long way to destroying local economies around this province.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Can you tell me how laying off 3,000 nurses in a recessionary economy is going to help? Can you tell me how laying off people in the public sector and cutting down the amount of money that they're going to spend is going to help the general private-sector economy' I challenge any one of those Socred members to get up and tell me how it works. How can you take money out of the economy that is being spent directly into the economy, through section 9, and help bring about some sort of downturn in the inflationary spiral? You can't do it.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: There's a man who has worked in a credit union.

[ Page 7624 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Is that the way you want it to go?

MR. LEA: No, no. I'll tell you how you stop inflation: you stop putting up the user fees; you put on some price controls in necessary areas. That's what you do. You don't take money out of the economy; you help it.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: The minister says: "There's the expert in economics who used to drive a taxicab."

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's immaterial in any case, hon. members.

MR. LEA: It is a little immaterial. But I want to show you that that is the depth of thinking of a cabinet minister in this province. And we're going to have legislation on economic affairs pass through his cabinet. Is that what we're going to do? The Minister of Finance knows better. He has been involved with municipal politics and municipal finance authorities for the last 20 years. He's been involved with government. He's been involved with the finance area of North America. He's been involved with the economy of this province. I challenge the minister to get up and tell us how section 9 is going to help the economy of this province — not in some superficial terms talking about the climate; I want to know specifically what is going to follow when section 9 passes and how that's going to bring down the inflationary rate in this province. It won't. And you cannot continue to pour money into capital projects and take away from the local communities. That's what you're doing. Yes, you'll create pocket wealth in the northeastern part of the province for those people from Alberta who are working up there on northeast coal.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I've listened to the lengthy remarks by the member for Prince Rupert and the previous speaker, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), who is not in his seat, and I wonder if, in fact, the Chair has not had some difficulty in relating this to the "strictly relevant" clause.

MR. KING: You're bullying the Chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I don't think the Chair feels bullied, Mr. Chairman. I leave it to you to tell me if I am bullying you. I wonder how the MFA, the international markets and so on can be related to a single section in Bill 28.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. minister. Hon. members, the Chair must again point out that we are in committee and we are on section 9, and our standing orders necessitate that we be strictly relevant. To recanvass what was discussed in second reading is not appropriate at this stage, or we really wouldn't need the committee side. I would ask the member speaking if he could be strictly relevant to section 9.

MR. LEA: Out of the remarks that I made, I have a very simple question for the minister. They say that the intent of this entire legislation that will be carried out through section 9, which is limiting and cutting back the wages paid to public employees, is to dampen the inflationary spiral in the province of British Columbia. According to the government, that's the thrust of their entire legislation around this bill, Bill 28. I would like to ask the minister exactly how he hopes to curb inflation by taking money out of the local economies through the wages of nurses and public employees throughout this province. He won't answer that; he'll get into technicalities.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that I can answer the question within the standing orders of this House, as I indicated just a few moments ago, but I would refer the member — if in fact he's listening — to page 7343 of Hansard for May 3, 1982. If I might just briefly recap the comments made that day — albeit in second reading, but related to section 9 — I spoke about the guidelines which are dealt with in section 9. The Chair and other members will recognize that there are 36 sections and there are many more matters to be canvassed in committee. They can't all be discussed, I suggest, with respect, under this particular section.

Back to Hansard:

At the guideline stage these limits will have three components: a basic income-protection factor of 10 percent; an experience adjustment factor of 2 percent, which could be added to or subtracted from that figure; and a special-circumstances factor, which is a possible additional 2 percent. So the commissioner (that is, Mr. Peck) will determine whether the increase proposed in a compensation plan conforms to the limit provided for in the guidelines. The commissioner may work with the parties to assist them in meeting the guidelines. As part of this effort, he may even authorize his compensation mediator to suggest an acceptable settlement in writing. It should be noted, however, that the onus lies on the parties to work out an acceptable solution within the parameters of the guidelines, which are written so as to give the parties and the commissioner considerable leeway in trying to reach a successful conclusion.

To the extent that parties work constructively within the framework of the guidelines, a considerable degree of freedom to bargain collectively will in fact be retained.

Mr. Chairman, that is a relatively brief excerpt from the remarks made at the time of second reading regarding the guidelines.

We determined to set out reasonable guidelines, to provide flexible limits that would allow the parties — that is, the employees and the employers in schools, in municipalities, in hospitals, within the provincial government and its agencies — to negotiate a settlement that would allow a reasonable wage for all workers through work-sharing or other innovative schemes, while not causing layoffs or service reductions.

Mr. Chairman, I have to observe after a number of hours of debate.... If the debate is to continue, fine; that's perfectly acceptable, and that's what it's all about in this committee and in this chamber. I have the feeling that the lack of understanding of section 9 of Bill 28 rests not on the government side of this House but on the opposition side. It is very difficult to assist those who do not wish to understand precisely what is stated.

MR. BARRETT: Come on now, don't patronize us. Why don't you answer the questions?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The insults come in a torrent from the other side. Occasionally, one has to trickle back.

The point is, Mr. Chairman, that I don't think the members opposite really want to understand what is in section 9 of Bill 28. They recognize the serious situation which exists not only in British Columbia but across the country and in North

[ Page 7625 ]

America. Section 9, while not the entire thrust of Bill 28, is one of the key aspects of this particular piece of legislation.

If the members opposite wish me to give them more details on section 9, perhaps they could point out where I've been deficient. Again, we're simply dealing here with part 2, the compensation guidelines. I've mentioned repeatedly, notwithstanding claims to the contrary from the other side, the percentage figures which form one of the main aspects of this piece of legislation. The guidelines that were announced on February 18, which have been subjected to some interpretation and subjected to some remarks made occasionally in the heat of the moment.... The statements which were made on February 18 by the Premier and the statements which I have made on a number of occasions here stand.

MS. BROWN: The minister asks in what way he's been deficient. I think the problem we're dealing with is that the minister is contradicting his Premier and his leader. We all heard his speech on May 3, and we took it seriously. We thought the minister knew what he was talking about. Lo and behold, on May 12 the Premier gives us a different set of guidelines.

MR. BARRETT: Now who's running the show?

MS. BROWN: That's it. The Premier isn't in the House now, so the minister leaps to his feet and says he's running the show and we should take his guidelines seriously. How can we do that? The Premier may be just down the hall issuing his guidelines again — to say nothing of Mr. Spector, who may be off somewhere else issuing his guidelines again.

This is the problem that we're having with section 9. Everyone, including the deputy minister in the Premier's office, issues guidelines. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) says 8 percent to the school trustees. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) says 7.6 percent. The Minister of Finance says 10 to 14 percent. The Premier says 5 percent. Mr. Spector says: "Do what I say, or I'll call the Legislature back in." I mean, who is running the show over there? Why are we wasting our time with this minister anyway? If we really want to know what the guidelines are, we should probably be asking Mr. Spector, because he apparently has the power to call the House back into session even when it already is in session.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does he know? He doesn't come in here.

MS. BROWN: Apparently he doesn't need to come in here.

The minister gets up and says: "Page 7343 on May 3. There are the answers to my questions." That doesn't tell us anything in view of the fact that since May 3 everyone has been contradicting him. If he is the leader of the government and if his word is tantamount or superior or paramount to everybody else's word over there, then that's fine. We'll take it seriously, and we'll deal with the 10 to 14 percent guidelines that he is referring to. But that's not the indication we have. We've never had any indication that anybody takes anything that that minister says seriously anyway. He brings down a budget based on all kinds of statistics which the Employers Council and every other group of economists in Canada tell us is totally incorrect.

By his own standards, criteria and guidelines, we can't take him seriously. Certainly I will tell you that no one in this province who cares one little bit about health care takes that minister seriously, not when we see what this restraint, as carried out by the Minister of Health, is doing to the hospitals and to the delivery of health care in this province.

The Premier talks about being mystified by the hospital cuts. He says he does not understand why beds are closing. He is at a loss, he says, to explain why beds are being closed. Every hospital administrator in this province, every doctor who uses the hospitals, the nurses and everyone else have been trying to explain to the minister, and through the minister to the Premier, that the restraint program is directly responsible for the closing of these hospital beds and the placing of all British Columbians at risk. It has been explained over and over again, yet the Premier remains mystified. It is very difficult to know how to deal with the Premier's mystification. That is another problem the people of British Columbia are going to take care of once they get an opportunity.

In the meantime, we are told that it is not serious. The Premier says: "There is going to be less elective surgery, less usage." Do the Premier and the Minister of Finance know what elective surgery is? People take the attitude that elective surgery is something you can or cannot have, depending on the mood you are in, like cutting your fingernails or shaving before you go on TV. Does the Minister of Finance realize, for example, that most of the surgery that young children and babies need and have is elective surgery? Of course they're not going to die if they don't get their tonsils removed; of course they may not die if their adenoids aren't dealt with immediately. But how many of us who have ever stayed up all night with a crying child or a baby in pain could dismiss their need for a tonsillectomy or for their adenoids to be removed by saying: "Oh well, that is just elective surgery. They can wait"? The tragedy of this situation is that so much of what is being dismissed by that government over there creates pain and suffering for people who cannot fight back and cannot defend themselves. Maybe every time that minister dismisses the closing of beds by saying, "Well, they'll have to wait just a little bit longer for their elective surgery," he should think about the number of children in this province who are going to have to wait longer and to live in pain longer.

MR. BARRETT: They could die.

MS. BROWN: They may not die, but why should they have to go through pain and suffering because this government has placed its priorities elsewhere?

The Minister of Finance is so busy with other things that he's not even concerned enough to recognize the importance of not allowing this section to stand the way it is. Pull this section or amend it; do something about it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: How would you like it amended?

MS. BROWN: Start off by eliminating this section and then eliminating the bill. That is a good first step to take.

HON. MR. CURTIS: How would you amend the section?

MS. BROWN: I would wipe that section out.

[ Page 7626 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm talking to Rosemary, not to you.

MS. BROWN: You are supposed to speak to the Chair, and the Chair can speak to me.

This section says that the executive council, whenever it feels like it, issues the guidelines. As I said before, we have different guidelines coming from Mr. Spector, the Premier, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health.

The Minister of Finance also may not realize how much elective surgery affects adults as well. These are the kinds of things that may not necessarily kill you, such as your need for a hernia operation, although if it does become strangulated, that could be a bit of a problem. However, it is elective surgery. I don't know how many people have had to go around waiting for a bed with a strangulated hernia, but I'll bet it's painful. I would hazard a guess.

MR. MUSSALLEM: On a point of order. Although the member for Dewdney recognizes that some latitude must be allowed, I think that on the fifth day of the debate on section 9, you should adhere strictly to what this section says and nothing else; otherwise we can go around this thing forever. I call on the Chairman to be very difficult, very firm and very tight. I intend to speak on it, and you can do the same with me. When we start talking about elective surgery and such things, we're way beyond the pale of this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. I'm sure that the member has finished her preliminary remarks and will now deal with section 9.

MS. BROWN: I won't discuss hernias any more, since that brings the member for Dewdney to his feet.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to explain clearly to the member for Dewdney why I'm discussing elective surgery. Section 9 has to do with the issuing by the executive council of stabilization guidelines to the employer. The interpretation section of the bill states very clearly — if I can read it for the member for Dewdney, because I know that you already know it — under (h) that "a hospital as defined in the Hospital Act or the Hospital Insurance Act which receives funds from another public-sector employer" is part of the interpretation of what an employer is. So I'm discussing the hospital.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Where's that in this bill?

MS. BROWN: You know, maybe we need a little bit more than elective surgery to deal with that member's problems, Mr. Chairman. The hospitals are defined as employers under subsection (h): "...public-sector employer means (h) a hospital as defined in the Hospital Act...." I'm saying that the hospital as employer is having to make some decisions based on the guidelines which have been issued by the minister, the Premier, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), Mr. Spector and anyone else who feels like issuing guidelines. So I'm very close to it.

One of the things they have to do is cut back on elective surgery, all of that surgery that children and adults need — female adults as well as male, because most of the gynaecological surgery that women have comes under the heading of elective surgery too. All I'm saying is that when the members on the government side, including the Minister of Finance and the Premier, dismiss these cutbacks on the grounds that they're just elective surgery, they should probably have a better understanding of what elective surgery is. That's what I was trying to do.

We read in the paper on May 14, for example, that in New Westminster the Royal Columbian Hospital is going to have to divert ambulances to other hospitals. That's a direct result of the Compensation Stabilization Act and the cutbacks which are taking place as a result of the Minister of Health insisting that their budgets not go beyond the 7.6 percent.

Where is the Minister of Finance anyway? Oh, here he comes. I thought he was out in the hallway issuing new guidelines or dealing with one of his addictions, but I see he's back. No addiction? Okay. It's nice to know that after the tobacco bill the minister has no more addiction.

Mr. Chairman, when you look at the kinds of things that hospitals are going to have to do — and I want to quote someone who works in one of those hospitals.... She identified herself as a nurse at St. Paul's Hospital. She talks about the kinds of concerns that the nursing staff have, such as no replacement of sick staff, and she talks about her own experience on a 12-hour shift. Apart from the routine care, ranging from essential patient-recovery assessment for doctor-nurse evaluation, she also has to change soiled bed linen and administer 80 drugs through one route or another. She said in her letter to the editor: "This may not sound like very much, but imagine if you were one of the 80 patients waiting to have your drug administered."

MR. MUSSALLEM: On a point of order, the hon. member is now debating section 18. We'll get to that in time, but we should do it in its proper order. The operative word in this section 9, as I see it — and we most hold to it, Mr. Chairman, or this debate will never end and we'll just be marking time — is "stabilize," and that's what the debate must move around. It's not a question of individual situations in the hospitals, as important as they may be. There are other sections to deal with that, and it is not the section the member is debating. I call on the Chair to hold tight to this section. Five days is too long on one section when we're not getting anywhere. They're not debating the debate before this House.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. While you're taking the member's point of order under consideration, you should also consider the fact that he is taking instructions from the minister by running over there with these spurious points of order to interrupt this member who's making a serious statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I find it unacceptable that the minister is ordering that member to interfere in this debate and deliberately create this kind of interruption when that member is up on her feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I find it absolutely unacceptable that the minister is doing that to that member.

[ Page 7627 ]

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition is well aware of the rules of this committee. When the Chairman stands in committee it is mandatory that all members be silent. Violation of that rule has meant immediate expulsion from this chamber for the remainder of the sitting, and I would call that to the attention of all members of this committee for the first and last time. Any member who speaks in this committee while this Chairman is on his feet will be expelled from this chamber immediately.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we have now reached the stage where it is very difficult for the Chair to determine whether we are in fact debating section 9 or whether we are involved in the health-care estimates. I would commend to all members that we are engaged in debate on section 9, and we must be strictly relevant to section 9.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I believe the relevancy is there in terms of the fact that the cabinet gets to set guidelines under section 9 in order to what they call "stabilize" the budgetary system for the hospitals. On that basis I believe that the arguments are quite relevant to the extent that the hospitals seem to feel that they're very relevant.

MR. MUSSALLEM: On the same point of order, I object strenuously, and I feel offended that the hon. Leader of the Opposition would say that I'm running over to the minister for instructions. I have never, ever discussed the bill with the minister at any time, and I wish him to retract that statement or show proof that it has happened.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Dewdney has taken offence to a remark made by the Leader of the Opposition. The Chair is powerless to instruct the member, but the Chair would ask that if the member so wishes, he may take advantage of the opportunity to withdraw the remark.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the remark, but I wish the member would stop interrupting a serious debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The remark is withdrawn.

Hon. members, again, we are on section 9. The Chair has taken note of the remarks from the member for New Westminster, but nevertheless the Chair must hold that we are bound by our standing orders, which state "strictly relevant" is the key to this debate. To stray from that into what could better be discussed at another time would be a breach of our own standing orders. I'm sure when the member continues, she will bear that in mind.

MS. BROWN: Well, the first thing I'd like to find out, Mr. Chairman, is whether the 15 minutes which have been eaten up out of my time are going to be replaced, because this is a new technique on the part of the government Whip to leap up on spurious points of orders whenever he wants to use up the time allotted to us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. It is most improper for a member to indicate that another member is rising on a spurious point of order. Even by the Chair that term is seldom used, although the Chair is often tempted. I would ask the member to continue on section 9.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to continue on section 9, and I hope the member for Dewdney will permit me to do so without further interruption. I cannot be held responsible for the fact that the member for Dewdney does not understand this section. I will not be held responsible for that, and I will not use any more of my time explaining to the member for Dewdney just what section 9 is all about.

Section 9 deals with the public-sector employer, and one such public-sector employer is the hospital, and some such public-sector employees are people who work in the hospitals. That is absolutely clear and plain, and anyone with the most limited amount of intelligence should be able to deal with that simple fact. I'm not going to be held responsible if the member for Dewdney can't.

Mr. Chairman, section 9 specifically talks about the executive council issuing these guidelines. We're opposed to that, because guidelines have already been issued by a number of different of people on the government benches, and these guidelines contradict each other. If it were possible for the Minister of Finance to state quite clearly here and now exactly what those guidelines were; if the Premier would agree that what the Minister of Finance has stated is, in fact, correct — that those are the guidelines; and if the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) would also cooperate and say that those are the guidelines, that would be one thing. But that is not what is happening. We have the Minister of Finance quoting certain guidelines, the Premier giving different guidelines, the Minister of Health another set of guidelines, and on the weekend, the Minister of Education giving another set of guidelines. The way section 9(l) has been written is just not good enough.

I am here to tell you that the hospital as employer and nurses as public-sector employees are concerned about this section. When the bill was first introduced, the minister invited briefs to be presented to him. What has he done with those briefs? The Registered Nurses Association of B.C. immediately communicated with him on April 29 and pointed out that there were three reasons why they were opposed to this piece of legislation. They talked about the erosion of the quality and quantity of health services, they talked about the loss of health-program alternatives, and they talked about the threat to the education future of nurses and other health professionals. What did the minister do with that brief? What indication is there that he paid the slightest bit of attention to that submission? Because if he did, then it should be clearly spelled out in section 9(l), not left to the whims and fancy of any member of the executive council or any deputy minister in the Premier's office.

It should be spelled out in here. It should be very clear what the guidelines are and there should also be some indications that the guidelines will be flexible enough to ensure that there would be an immediate stop to the erosion of the quantity and quality of health services in this province, there would be an immediate stop to the loss of health-program

[ Page 7628 ]

alternatives, and the threat to the future of nurses' education would be immediately eliminated. That's what we want to see incorporated in this section. We want to see an end to the bed closures. We want to see an end to the laying off of staff, medical as well as otherwise, in the hospital sector, and we want to see an end to people waiting — children as well as adults — for elective surgery.

On the weekend there was even an article in one of the newspapers, Mr. Chairman, about someone with a back ailment waiting for some elective surgery to be performed on his spine. His doctor voiced some concern about that patient becoming addicted to the pain-killing drugs.

There is also the question of how these people who are waiting for surgery and who are unable to work are living. Are they applying for income assistance? Are they living on welfare or UIC? What other area of the tax-paying dollar is picking up the tab for this breakdown in the quality of the delivery of health services? Those are the kinds of questions we need to have answered, or else we need to see this section pulled and redrafted so that it very clearly states what the guidelines are, and that those guidelines are flexible enough to ensure that the erosion of the quantity and quality of health services in this province comes to an end immediately.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The Minister of Finance asked me what I would do with this section. I am suggesting to him that that is what I would do. I would ensure that the guidelines that are drafted are revealed to all of us once and for all and that those guidelines are flexible enough to ensure that the quality of health care and education and the quality of delivery of services by the public sector are not jeopardized by those guidelines.

A couple of things have happened. We have been told that at the Vernon Jubilee Hospital, for example, the entire psychiatric day-care service is closing. I don't want to talk about what psychiatric day-care is all about, because that would be better dealt with under the estimates of the Ministry of Health. So just in passing, some of the fallout from section 9(l) is that the entire psychiatric day-care program at the Vernon Jubilee Hospital is going to be closing. As well, there is going to be a reduction in beds — 9 in surgery, 16 in general day care, for a total of 25 — and they are going to start charging $15 for the use of the emergency.

We have been told that as a direct result of section 9(1,) the Prince George hospital is going to lose its only psychologist. Only one psychologist is going to be left there now. This woman has been working with the mental-health team for two years. She does all the clinical testing as well as some of the therapy treatment. In addition she deals with referrals from the schools — depression in the children and emotional problems at home and at school. As a direct result of section 9(l), that psychologist has been notified that as of June 1 of this year her services are no longer going to be used by the hospital simply because they cannot afford it.

I don't want to discuss what child psychologists do, because I realize that this is not the place to do it, but one of the things that they do do is early detection of problems. That is very important to a government that is trying to save money. You put money into preventive work, and you don't end up having to put it into curative work at the end. That is neither here nor there. As well, there are not going to be any assessments done on the children.

As a direct result of section 9(l) of this bill, a number of other things are happening. There are four students at Jericho Hill School, for example, who are deaf. In order to get a post-secondary education they were supposed to be going to Washington, because there is no place in British Columbia where they could do that, and no place in Canada, for that matter. In order for them to do that these students need a provincial government subsidy. Until now they've always had it. The government has always subsidized students from Jericho Hill School who needed to leave the country for their post-secondary education. As a direct result of section 9(l) of this bill, that subsidy is being eliminated. Those students are being deprived of an opportunity. I want to remind you that these are students with a disability. These are students who are deaf and are attending Jericho Hill School. They have an opportunity to overcome their disability, enough to survive as normal functioning human beings by going to Washington for a post-secondary education. As a direct result of section 9(l) of this bill, the subsidy, which heretofore this government had made available to these students, is being eliminated.

I think you can understand why the opposition is having so much difficulty with the fact that the Minister of Finance is not responding to the dilemma that so many people in British Columbia are having to deal with. The quality of health care in this province is eroding and deteriorating. It is at risk for every single one of us — not just for the sick but for the healthy as well. Preventive services as well as curative services are all being curtailed, and no one knows to what extent that curtailment is going to continue. It's not spelled out in section 9(1) of this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I notice that you are pointing to the fact that my light has gone green and will soon be red. I just want to tell you — I had hoped that I might have had time, and maybe I'll speak again — about what Bill 28, and in particular section 9(l), is going to mean in terms of the education of health professionals: nurses, rehabilitation counsellors, medical students and others. I want to ask the Minister of Finance one last question before my light goes red. Can the Minister of Finance assure this House that he does know what the guidelines are and that he is going to pull section 9 — if, indeed, he is not prepared to pull the entire bill — and not bring it back until he's prepared to spell out in detail the guidelines? Can he also assure the House that those guidelines are going to be flexible enough so that the deterioration of our health care, our education system, our social services and our other services to people in this province will cease? Can the Minister of Finance assure the opposition and the people of British Columbia of those facts?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member who has just taken her seat has asked if we will pull the section. The answer is no. We disagree on the section, although I might say — and I think that these remarks will be in order — that it is somewhat puzzling to hear this protracted debate on the guideline portion of the bill, which is not mandatory, but rather, as I've observed on many occasions, is the one that offers the greatest flexibility in the whole program. However, presumably the members of the opposition decided to indulge in major debate at some point, and they selected this section. No, we will not pull this section.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, I can assure the member that I am confident that the section as drawn and the intentions of the government as stated.... I may be mistaken,

[ Page 7629 ]

but I don't think the member was in her seat in the committee when I spoke earlier this afternoon. She may have been....

MS. BROWN: I was. I listened to every word.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, I'm sorry. I apologize, Madam Member.

I have again gone through the percentages as recently as this afternoon, so I hope that there is no further reference to the fact that I haven't answered that question. The percentages are the percentages are the percentages. I can make it no clearer. I've identified them, and I think that the percentages which have been spoken of will accomplish that which the member spoke of in the latter part of her question.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the minister keeps indicating that he has given us these guidelines. He gave them again this afternoon, but there is such confusion and chaos out there because of the various statements that have been made (a) by the minister, and (b) by the Premier. You know, the whole program is in a mess right now because nobody knows what's going on. For instance, we don't know whether the comments made by Mr. Spector are going to apply — that is, if the restraint program that's been outlined in this legislation, presumably with the guidelines outlined by the Minister of Finance.... If they do apply, will the Premier then bring in other legislation, as Mr. Spector indicated just this weekend? We're going to bring in other legislation, Mr. Chairman, if, in fact, this doesn't work.

First of all, there's confusion around the guidelines; next there is confusion about the program itself; and then finally, if the program is not going to work, we're going to have other legislation. So you can understand why there is such confusion and why we need clarification about the Premier's statements with respect to percentages that are, in fact, lower than that 8 percent.

Is the Minister of Finance actually contradicting the statements of the Premier? Are the statements by the Premier — the tough talk by the Premier...? This again has been referred to by Mr. Spector. Is that tough talk only to get the arbitration awards down following the introduction of the guidelines as outlined in this section? Is that what it's all about — to get the arbitrators of the province to bring in a lower arbitration?

Do you know what they are doing with this section and with the confusion surrounding the section? They are destroying the whole collective bargaining process. By introducing the section, they interfere with collective bargaining. With the kind of contradictory statements that are being made by the Premier, the Minister of Finance and the deputy in the Premier's office, we now have an interference with the whole arbitration system as well. It is no wonder that Don Munroe, the former chairman of the B.C. Labour Relations Board, is jumping all over the deputy at the Premier's office, who is saying that one of the reasons the Premier is talking tough is that we want lower arbitrated settlements. That is direct interference with that whole process.

This government doesn't care about collective bargaining, about its arbitration system; the only thing it cares about is making some political points. That's why they're bringing in this legislation in this way. That's why there's so much confusion surrounding it. That's why we have statements from deputies about interfering directly with the arbitration system in the province. That is what it's all about. Straight politics — that's all it is. We want to know whether the statements made by the Premier are going to apply in this section. Is the Premier just talking through his hat? Is that what the Minister of Finance is trying to tell us? That he doesn't really mean less than 8 percent, he means 8 percent, 10 percent, 12 percent or 14 percent?

The other madness in this is that even if the commissioner, Mr. Peck, advises that there will be a rollback on one of the settlements; it may not be accepted by government. We have an example of that in the paper just this weekend. If they don't like the particular rollback ordered by Ed Peck, the commissioner, then they will bring in new legislation in order that they get their way. What is the point of spending $800,000 for the commissioner Ed Peck to operate as a decision-maker under this.... That's right. That's what the appropriation is in order to ensure that the commissioner's office can function. If they are going to pay that kind of money in order to have a commissioner determine whether or not there should be a rollback under this section, why are they talking about bringing in more legislation? If they are going to bring in other legislation to do away with the legislation now before us, then why are they going to spend $800,000 for that commissioner's office at all? It just makes no sense — except maybe political sense.

I think the whole point about this section and the reason for the section was made by Raeside in his cartoon last week. I would bring it in to show you, Mr. Chairman, but I know that we're not allowed to have cards or charts or visual displays of any kind. So I'm going to have to tell you about it. The cartoon depicted a policeman on a motorcycle, and the motorcycle represented the cuts in expenditures under this government's restraint program. The policeman pulls an ambulance representing health services over to the side so that he can hand out one of the budget cuts. One of the budget cuts is given to the poor little ambulance, while, in the same cartoon, we see depicted monstrous big trucks making all kinds of noises, charging down the highway, representing B.C. Place and northeast coal. That's what's happening under this section, Mr. Chairman.

I understand Raeside, the cartoonist, lives on one of the Gulf Islands, and I assume that all of the Gulf Islanders feel exactly the same way about this piece of legislation brought in by the MLA for the Gulf Islands.

Under the restraint program represented by this section, we have seen incredible cutbacks in the health services. Just this week we were given the figures again by the B.C. Health Association as to the kind of cutbacks we're actually looking at as a result of the restraint program under debate here this afternoon. They're incredible. The latest figures show that budget restraints have caused 2,018 layoffs and staff reductions in B.C. hospitals, while 1,114 hospital beds have been closed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, once again I must remind you that we are debating section 9 and we must be strictly relevant to the section before us, which discusses public-sector employers and public-sector employees.

MS. SANFORD: One of those public-sector employers is the hospital boards of the province. They are the ones that are determining, because of the restraint program introduced by this Government, that they have to lay off 2,018 people and to close 1,114 hospital beds.

[ Page 7630 ]

Another thing about the restraint program is that a young person who decides to become a part of the health-delivery system in this province and has taken the necessary training to become, in this case, a nurse is told by the government, just two weeks after she graduates: "No, I am sorry. We don't have any money. We can't hire you." This is after the government has appealed year after year get have more nurses into training so that they can fulfil the quota they need in order to staff the hospitals. Do you know what it does to her and to people like her, according to her letter in the Sun today? There is no way she is ever going to go back and work in the hospitals after that kind of treatment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, one more time I must advise the committee that we must be strictly relevant in committee, and section 9 is quite explicit. It does discuss compensation and that is the relevancy of the section before us. If the hon. member could please maintain relevance, the committee would be well served.

MS. SANFORD: Once the guidelines have been decided upon, and I am assuming at this point that the decision will be 8, 10, 12 and maybe 14 percent, as announced by the Minister of Finance.... If that's the case, according to a number of articles that have appeared in the paper, there will be no way in which Mr. Peck, the commissioner who has the authority under this statute to roll back the settlements, will not be able to roll back below 8 percent. I'm wondering if the Minister of Finance would answer for me whether or not the commissioner, Mr. Peck, will be able to roll back below 8 percent any settlement that is reached. I'm confused about that, because several times in the paper they quote deputy ministers and people involved in making up this particular piece of legislation as saying that there's no way that they will be able to roll back below 8 percent any settlement. If so, does it mean that the kind of guidelines that the Premier has been outlining will apply? And if not, do the senior civil servants who have been involved in drawing up this piece of legislation not know what they're talking about? What's going to happen in terms of rollbacks under this section? I wanted to refer to what some of the other people in the province are saying about this section. In an editorial in the Comox District Free Press, for instance, the editor has concluded "from Premier Bennett's threat to force B.C. public servants to accept a 5 percent or less wage increase this year, that the recently enacted restraint program was another ill-conceived program." I think most people in the province will agree with that editorial viewpoint now, Mr. Chairman.

"Why else would the Premier now be backtracking on his statements regarding the restraint program — namely, that wage increases in the public workforce should be between 10 and 14 percent this year?"

It could be minus 2 as well.

"Observers of the situation now believe that Bennett may not have anticipated the wage-ranging and serious effects of the restraints on hospitals and municipalities. He and his cabinet simply underestimated the magnitude of what they had foisted on the province."

I agree wholeheartedly with this editorial, Mr. Chairman. The editor goes on to say:

"Now, in a desperate attempt to keep public services, especially health services, from falling to levels which may backfire on the popularity gains he had hoped to make by imposing fiscal conservatism throughout the government, he is willing to force the public service to make sacrifices for his program."

The editor concludes:

"If the government blew it and now fear drastic repercussions they hadn't counted on, or if new factors have affected the situation, the Premier should be prepared to disclose them properly."

That's what we're asking for right here under this section, Mr. Chairman. Let's have a disclosure of what they're talking about in this section; let's have a disclosure as to what the powers of Peck are; and let's have a disclosure of whether the Minister of Finance is the one whose figures we're to accept or whether it's the Premier's figures that we are to accept. The other thing that confuses me, Mr. Chairman, is that the Premier had said that he would back his restraint program with tougher legislative measures if public-sector settlements resulted in layoffs or reductions in service. We've seen lots of layoffs and we've seen lots of reductions in service, particularly in hospitals, but what does the Premier mean by saying that he's going to back his restraint program with tougher legislative measures? Does that mean that the figures that have been given by the Minister of Finance under this section are not going to apply, and that the Premier is going to bring in tougher figures, allowing the floor to be 5 percent or less? Is that what it is?

The Premier has said that if there are any layoffs in the public sector, then obviously he's going to bring in tougher legislative measures. Is that the new way of arbitrating that Jonathan Sector has been talking about?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Who?

MS. SANFORD: I'm sorry. It's Norman Spector, isn't it?

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: You know very well who I mean. I'm talking about that deputy in the Premier's office who keeps telling the press what this program is all about, even though you don't tell us here in this Legislature.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could we have all members come to order.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, this restraint program and this section bringing in the guidelines are throwing the whole industrial relations in the province into disarray. The comment made by the Deputy Premier is making it nearly impossible for the arbitrators of the impossible to do their work. The other thing is that we have the Premier saying that if there are any layoffs — and I have already given you the figures of the layoffs in the hospitals alone — he's going to bring in tougher legislation. What I want to know from the Minister of Finance is if a new piece of legislation is currently being drawn up by the Deputy Premier or Heal or somebody else, or does it mean that there is going to be a change in the guidelines when the executive council actually sits down and works out those guidelines and puts them into regulation? The layoffs have taken place, and the Premier says that means tougher legislative measures.

[ Page 7631 ]

Maybe that's why we haven't seen the Premier this afternoon. Maybe it's because he's drawing up a new set of guidelines to present on another free-time telecast sometime later this week or next week. Maybe he's going to announce a new legislative program concerning restraint on a free-time telecast next week. Their restraint program is disastrous, Mr. Chairman. It's in chaos. It has resulted in all kinds of hospital-bed closures and in layoffs in the hospitals. It is setting a precedent in this province with respect to interference in labour relations and the whole arbitration system. They don't know what they're doing over there.

I would like the Minister of Finance to answer some specific questions with respect to his comments, the comments of the Premier and the comments that he has made with respect to cutbacks in service and any layoffs that are going to result in something different. We want to know what that "something different" is before we pass this section. Does it mean a change in what the minister has announced several times — the 8, 10, 12 and 14 percent? Does it mean a whole new program? Does Spector know what he's talking about? Does he know anything about labour relations? Does the minister know what he's doing to labour relations in this province with this kind of legislation? We want some answers, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) may not have been in the House or in the committee or near her speaker in her office when on two occasions this afternoon I was quite specific with respect to this section 9, which is before us. However, I did not answer some of the questions posed by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). I would like to do that tomorrow.

In the meantime, I move that the committee rise, report progress on section 9 and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.