[ Page 7807 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Hydro and Power Authority Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 40). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On section 2 (continued) –– 7807

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Mitchell

Division

On the title –– 7809

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Third reading –– 7811

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 36). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7811

Mr. Stupich –– 7811

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7811

Assessment Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 6). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7811

Mr. Stupich –– 7812

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7812

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

On section 9 (continued) –– 7812

Mr. Barber

Division

On section 17 –– 7813

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Appendix –– 7818

THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in welcoming in the gallery today a group of 33 grade 7 students from Kitwanga Elementary School.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 40.

HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 40; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

On section 2.

MR. LEGGATT: The point I was addressing yesterday, Mr. Chairman, was the question of per capita debt in the province of British Columbia. The Hydro share of provincial debt is by far the largest debt burden in the province of British Columbia. When you look at figures for 1982 borrowing, for example, you're looking at figures like $1 billion for B.C. Hydro, $343 million in education, $51 million under UTA and Transpo '86, and $176 million elsewhere. That gives us, as of March of this year, additional borrowings of $1.6 billion. The Hydro borrowing figures are from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. We now are looking at a provincial debt of $9,627,400,000. Divided by the population of the province of British Columbia, each and every citizen in this province has a provincial debt burden of $3,850. Yesterday I mentioned this in connection with the federal debt; I'm afraid I got carried away and my figures were somewhat in error, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: As usual.

MR. LEGGATT: As usual. And I erred on the wrong side. No one was listening yesterday, nor are they today.

The present situation is that the federal debt for each and every citizen in Canada is $3,000 per capita. We are looking at a debt of approximately $7,000 per capita....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Including the CN?

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, the Crown debt is included. We estimate the federal Crown debt is running at about $50 billion.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Have you added in what the CBC loses in lawsuits?

MR. LEGGATT: Well, if the recipients of all that tax largess would only refund the money, the CBC would be in a lot better shape. You've got to have a little charity in your soul about these things. You can't just keep blaming the CBC. You've got to give them some money back; let them operate.

In any, event, the amount of provincial debt and federal debt is far too high. But the theory that somehow all of the debt is federal debt doesn't bear any kind of close examination. The per capita national debt and the per capita British Columbia provincial debt are running at about the same amount: for the citizens of British Columbia it's about $3,800 per capita; federally it's between $3,000 and $4,000. That's a large problem for our children and for our children's children.

We should take this whole borrowing question a little more seriously than we have because, in a future where there may not be as much to go around, we have mortgaged the future for the present. It may be all right for us in this chamber, and perhaps for a good number of the people we represent, but it's not all right for our children and our children's children, who are going to find it increasingly difficult to pay that debt in the future, because the resources will not be there. In an era of potential scarcity, it's time to have a look at the way we go about financing the present by charging the children with those costs in the future.

This government has been one of the worst in the history of British Columbia in adding that debt to our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. It has largely been the result of their failure to control B.C. Hydro, of their failure to do anything but appoint their political friends to run B.C. Hydro, thereby having no clout and no influence over its direction. As long as you have the Bob Bonners of this world making those kinds of decisions, you're not going to have any change in the philosophy, of B.C. Hydro. If you look at that operation in terms of bringing it under control....

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) sponsored and chaired a very excellent report around Hydro financing and recommended to this House that we divide Hydro into four component parts. I know he's going to follow me on this and I'll welcome very much his excellent critique of the management and operation of that powerful corporation that affects us all — so adversely, I might say, from time to time. The recommendation to the Crown corporations committee to break up Hydro was a good recommendation. It should be in four component parts.

We've then got to look at the way we are borrowing money for Hydro at incredible levels, charging the future, 40 percent of every electrical bill in the province is going to service the debt of Hydro. This is a burden around our necks, but it's time we started rethinking. It's time we looked at the conserver society. It's time we looked at alternative ways of producing energy, rather than simply borrowing money at incredibly high interest rates — a charge on the future. The cost of that power is too high.

No one raises the environmental costs of a new dam such as the loss of fishing and hunting. The loss of general enjoyment of the landscape is very high, indeed, in terms of Hydro's operation. It's time we had another look at the debt structure of Hydro. It's the most in-debt corporation. It is burdening the people of British Columbia to a degree that must come to an end.

MR. MITCHELL: I thought the minister might be prepared to answer some of the statements made by the previous speaker. I remember my last attempt to enter into this debate, and the various side issues that developed into my being out of order. I would like to make sure I'm in order. I believe this

[ Page 7808 ]

borrowing bill, if I'm correct, deals with borrowing for the potential Hat Creek and Murphy Creek hydro developments. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? I believe that is in the borrowing bill, according to the Blues and the minister. I would like to confine my remarks to that type of development so you don't rule me out of order again. I won't use that word that makes the minister jump up and down. He reminds me of the dog who started to salivate when the bell rang, so I won't mention that word.

It's really important that we do follow in the lines of the previous speaker, look at where we are going and other alternatives for providing power to British Columbia, and replace this enormous debt that we are putting on the people of British Columbia. Though this particular bill is only for $1.1 billion, for me $1.1 billion is still a lot of money. We should look at it in the context of what the final cost of these particular projects is going to be. Are they really needed, can we afford them at this time, and can we replace more power for a lot less money?

The Murphy Creek development is not going to come on stream until 1989, and it's going to produce something like 400,000 kilowatt-hours. It's going to cost us $1.2 billion. When you look at the Hat Creek development — and we are still pouring money into that, even though the environmentalists periodically raise a lot of flak over it — the government says: "Well, we're really not committed to Hat Creek. We might not be going ahead with it." But we're still pouring millions and millions of dollars into that project. What is it going to produce? It is going to produce two million kilowatt-hours once it comes on stream. But what is it going to cost us? It is going to cost us in the neighbourhood of $5 billion, and it's not going to come on stream until 1990. We're not going to get into the Site C development, which will come on in 1987 and cost another $2.7 billion, but we're looking at all this investment to produce less than 3.3 million kilowatt-hours.

I think we have to look at alternative sources of power that we in British Columbia have invested a lot of money in and can bring back to British Columbia. I think that we should study the development that took place in the Columbia River. Let's go over some of the history of the Columbia River development, because this is, I think, the key to development in British Columbia. When you look at....

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm right into it, because we're replacing this power to save the billions of dollars that we are wasting. The Columbia River, as you know, Mr. Chairman — you have gone over all the figures — was estimated to cost us $650 million. In fact, every one of us in this House knows that it cost the province of British Columbia $1.2 billion. In 1971-72, over $600 million was sucked out of the economy of British Columbia to pay off the massive debts and overruns that were caused by the previous Social Credit government.

British Columbians were the key to that Columbia River Treaty. We developed the three dams on the Columbia River, which produced over nine million kilowatts on the American side of the border. As the minister is well aware, we have an agreement that 50 percent of that power will be returned to British Columbia. We have to give the American government ten years' notice that we want that power back, because we in our wisdom, and in the previous Social Credit government's wisdom, decided to sell that power for something like $485 million. They decided to sell 4.5 million kilowatt hours for around — let me get my figures straight because the minister may say that I'm out of order — $485 million. The province of British Columbia cannot afford to add $1 billion in debt charges. These are the final figures we are talking about for Hat Creek and Murphy Creek. We are prepared to add $1 billion a year in debt charges to produce around two million kilowatt hours.

We can give the Americans the ten-year notice next year that we want to recover the 4.5 million kilowatt hours that are British Columbia's share of the Columbia River development. We can recover that. We could have it shipped back to British Columbia far more cheaply than pouring out the billion of dollars that this bill is a part of, producing more power at an excessive cost when we in this province are talking restraint. I know that restraint is not something that you look at just for this year or next year. We have to look at it for the economic development of this province for a number of years — Mr. Chairman, I won't say that word, but for a number of years ahead.

We have to invest our money wisely, and we have to be prepared to tell the Americans that we want this 4.5 million kilowatts back in British Columbia to create the jobs for British Columbians. That power, as you know, is creating employment for five aluminum plants on the American side of the border, and they are using cheap British Columbia power.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to lose the money?

MR. MITCHELL: We want jobs here. To the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), we want jobs in British Columbia. We want development in British Columbia. We don't want the massive debt that this government is sending us into.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I won't say to the member for Omineca what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) said to him at the bottom of his letter, according to the paper, but I would ask him to look at that letter, and when he stands he can tell the minister what he thought of that note. Again, if you want to get up and talk about Hydro, you get up and talk about it.

Mr. Speaker, this province cannot afford to keep adding another billion dollars a year in debt to the taxpayers. The taxpayers are subsidizing this, and the money is being sucked out of the economy to create jobs on the American side of the border.

I'm saying that we have the right to claim that power back. We can give the ten-year notice to get that 4.5 million kilowatt-hours of power back to British Columbia.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Turn out the lights for ten years.

MR. MITCHELL: We don't have to turn out the lights. We have the power, but we don't have to go ahead, because this power is not coming on stream until nearly the time that the power is needed. This is what I'm saying. The previous Social Credit government made a mess of industrial development in British Columbia. For some unknown reason, this present Social Credit government are afraid to rock the boat. They don't want to tell the truth and say there was a mess, and they're not prepared to do the long-range planning that is

[ Page 7809 ]

needed to give the notice to start preparing for the return of that power to British Columbia.

We on this side of the House believe in economic development. We believe in producing jobs in British Columbia, because our constituency is working people who need jobs. But we don't need the debt that this Hydro is putting the people of British Columbia in. We don't need the waste. We don't need the ridiculous planning. Every year that I have sat in this House we have brought in another increase in the Hydro borrowing, another $1 billion, another $1.5 billion, another $1.1 billion. Every year it's going up. We're getting to the point now that we're paying $1 billion a year just to service it if all these plans come on stream. We don't need it. We can't afford it. I say seriously to the minister: in his department we should start seriously looking down the road. Ten years is a very short time in the development of any province. We should look down the road to say: are we going to return this power to B.C.? Can we do it at a lot cheaper rate than we are doing it today? Is it going to cost less to build transmission lines to return it to B.C. than the massive dams, the flooding, the destruction of millions of acres in British Columbia will cost?

I say this to the minister, not from a political point of view, not only to arouse him, not only to get him mad, not only to turn him on. We in British Columbia must look at that. We must look at it because the responsibility doesn't lie in one person or in one party, but in the thoughts of the 2.5 million people who live here, vote here, and pay the taxes, and those who are going to come into it. If we are going to make this the beautiful province we know it is and produce jobs and security, we can't afford to keep sucking money out of the economy that can be used for creating secondary industry, a merchant navy and the various other forms of employment. I know you'll rule me out of order if I mention them, because they're not in this particular bill and are not directly connected to the Murphy dam or the Hat Creek thermal development.

The overall approach we're taking is wrong. We would all like fancy houses, but we all live within our income. If we can recycle something that we own or reclaim a debt or something that is needed from our friends.... We all call in these debts. This is not a debt; this is an agreement that British Columbia made. The Americans wouldn't hesitate to claim that power back. No other person who has an agreement would continue to be ripped off like British Columbia. Under the leadership of Social Credit in the previous government we were ripped off, out shuffled and out-dealt. We didn't look ahead. We didn't have faith in British Columbia. We gave those 4.5 million kilowatt hours away for $485 million, and now we're trying to replace it at the cost of another $9 billion to $10 billion.

To use the example of what happened when the Columbia River was developed, it was going to be developed for $650 million, but it cost the people of British Columbia $1.2 billion. For that $485 million, we gave away 4.5 million kilowatt hours. And now Hydro is saying that they want to replace 3 to 3.5 million kilowatt hours, but it's going to cost us $9 billion to $10 billion. I don't think we can afford that cost. We have to look ahead. We have to be prepared to plan for that power coming back to B.C. It's going to save every taxpayer and voter an awful lot of money that we can use to develop into secondary industry in British Columbia to create jobs for the people of this province.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 24

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

On the title.

MR. HOWARD: I think the title is inaccurate. What this bill should be called is the Debt Drug Dependency Act. Like anybody dependent on drugs, it needs a fix from time to time in the form of debt. The minister is the biggest pusher in the country in that regard.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to defend the title as it stands. It is a correct title for the bill. I just want to remind the House that on the matter of debt financing for B.C. Hydro, there was a petition circulating in the Kootenay area not too long ago asking that two projects, the Keenleyside dam and the Murphy Creek Dam, be pushed ahead in order to create employment in that area. There were some interesting people who signed that petition. I wonder whether the member for Esquimalt, who spoke earlier in the debate, had the chance to speak with some of his....

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this on the title?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I'm on the title, so that we can understand that this title is correct. I would just like to name some of the people who agree that the bill should be called....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I regret that while the minister may wish to impart some information, it is not an appropriate time. It could very well be more appropriate at a later time, such as estimates.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Obviously the debate about the changing of the title's name was in order because you allowed that debate to continue. I would just like to

[ Page 7810 ]

suggest that the title should be kept as it is and not changed, because there are many other people who agree with me and they have signed this petition asking for debt for B.C. Hydro. They include people like Sid Parker, MP; Jim Manly, MP; Margaret Mitchell, MP; Nelson Riis, MP; Svend Robinson, MP; Raymond Skelly, MP; and Lorne Nicolson, MLA. At an appropriate time I'd be happy to make a copy of this available for tabling in the House.

MR. HOWARD: I want to applaud all those members who signed that petition. It was the proper thing to do. You will also notice, if you ask any of those people whose names he read out who signed the petition, that they would also sign a petition to eliminate B.C. Hydro from being forced further and further into debt. That is the key we are talking about here. The people who signed that petition....

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: If we could have a little bit of silence from Bolshevik Bill over there, maybe we could listen to something.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Skeena has the floor.

MR. HOWARD: There is Bolshevik Bill offending the Chair again, Mr. Chairman. If I were you I would ask the Premier to leave the chamber. He refuses to pay attention to your edicts to quit chattering.

The people who signed that petition know full well that this government has an almost incestuous relationship with Bob Bonner and B.C. Hydro. They know that B.C. Hydro squanders hundreds of millions of dollars inappropriately. If you were to take the money that B.C. Hydro squanders on its head office mismanagement and applied the savings, you could build those projects which the minister referred to without going one single penny into debt.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Listen to them chortle now that we tell them how they've blown the economy of this province out of all proportion, how they've mismanaged the government and how they've mismanaged Hydro. But that's a fact of life. By saving money within Hydro, by eliminating a quarter of the clods who work in that head office and by eliminating the squandering of public funds at the administration and engineering level, you could pay for many a project. The problem is that the Premier doesn't have that thing called intelligence and guts — guts to be able to tell Hydro how to run things.

We also know that there is something in the neighbourhood of a $400 million Columbia River loss involved in all this. That's got to be paid for. Untold millions of dollars; that's right.

Yes, those people who signed that petition should be congratulated; and I do that. The people who need to be condemned are people like 14-million-dollar McClelland over there, who blew that much on the heroin treatment program. That's indicative of the type of management we have of the affairs of this province. When I listen to that kind of tripe from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and to his explanations of things, I realize that he's the guy who embarked upon a heroin treatment program, squandering $14 million of the taxpayers' money. He said in this House that if it was shown that the heroin treatment program didn't work, he'd be the first to resign over it — and he's still here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Be seated, please, hon. members. Very clearly the Chair has allowed not only the minister but also the member for Skeena to stray not only from the title and from the section but indeed into second reading. The minister was permitted to carry that debate beyond the scope; the member for Skeena was allowed in response to carry that debate beyond the scope. That will end the beyond-the-scope discussion on the title.

Also, I will read from the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May, page 519: "The title can only be amended if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment." Hon. members, no such amendment has taken place; thus the title discussion is not appropriate.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would just reflect very briefly on the comment that the member made relating to the congratulation of the people who signed this petition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I had hoped that the Chair had made the matter very clear that discussion at this stage will be limited to the title. We will not enter into debate which was canvassed in second reading. The Chair will simply not permit that debate to take place. That, hon. members, ends the discussion.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the minister.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I seek your guidance — simply to correct a statement or an omission that I made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I'm making a point of order, Mr. Chairman, on the point that the member made congratulating the people who had signed this petition. I just want to make a correction, Mr. Chairman. The MLA for the area, Mr. D'Arcy, refused to sign the petition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, of course the title is debatable, as is every section of every bill. I certainly respect your cautioning, sir, about the scope of what might be permitted on this section, as with any other. You have correctly pointed out from Sir Erskine May that it would be inappropriate to amend the title, but that the members have an opportunity to vote for or against the title as they wish. It

[ Page 7811 ]

could well be that a division takes place on whether or not this is a suitable title for the bill.

In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, only a fool would question the title and, of course, it's been my premise that we have had tremendous foolishness on repeated occasions from the members opposite. In speaking to the appropriateness of the title and the inappropriateness of voting against the title, I certainly want to amend publicly some of the opinions I have held about the New Democratic Party.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Clearly the minister is now straying from the title. I will instruct the minister to either return to the title or to take his place so that the bill can be completed.

HON. MR. McGEER: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. What I'm trying to determine here from the course of the debate is whether or not the position that this title is an unsuitable one is a position which represents the New Democratic Party as a whole, the New Democratic Party as a caucus here...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...or some members of that caucus. Surely the debate can explore that particular facet. I've said that only fools would be against it, and the question is are they all fools, is it just some of them who are here in the caucus, or is it the whole party? What I was prepared to amend, Mr. Chairman, was that they aren't all fools, because some of them signed that petition. That just leaves us wondering whether all of them who are here in that caucus are fools or just some — just the supporters of the leader. Are they the fools or are all of them fools?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Clearly now the Chair will exercise its prerogative and instruct the member to cease the debate and take his place.

HON. MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Chairman, may we ask...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The matter is closed, hon. member. The Chair has ruled that the member now is clearly in breach of the standing orders of the House, and I instruct the member to take his place.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 40, Hydro and Power Authority Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 36, Mr. Speaker.

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill containing some 33 sections, a number of which are not related one to the other. I look for direction from other hon. members. Is it the wish of the House that I proceed through second reading, or is it felt that the debate would be more appropriate in committee?

It is a relatively typical bill dealing with a number of statutes which require minor amendments, and I have no indication, Mr. Speaker.... Therefore I would point out that, obviously, there could be and would be debate in committee stage of Bill 36. I move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker. we agree with the minister's summation. I suppose if there is any principle running through this legislation, it's the one spelled with "al" rather than "le." It doubles the minimum fines in several areas, and in other areas increases the borrowing power for Crown corporations. That's really the principle of the bill, but we'll support the bill at this stage.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I thank the hon. member for Nanaimo, and move second reading of Bill 36.

Motion approved.

Bill 36, Finance Statutes 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: Second reading of Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS: This bill was introduced in the last weeks of 1981, and contains two aspects which will be of interest to members. The amendment to section 26 of the Assessment Amendment Act would allow the Minister of Finance to set for any school district a residential assessment ratio for land and improvements different to the general residential ratio established for other districts. The assessment ratio, as members know, is the percentage of actual value used in determining assessed value.

This amendment is before us to permit us to phase in rapidly increasing residential property values. The phase-in procedure was recommended in the school taxation report presented by my colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) as a means of dampening the immediate effect of rapid increases in market values in particular school districts. It is a way of targeting relief to those areas most particularly requiring it.

For 1981, as members know, the residential assessment ratio was reduced from 14.5 percent to 11 percent. Although this adjustment was generally appropriate for Vancouver and other urban areas, it caused problems for a number of municipalities, and therefore taxpayers, outside the lower mainland. If the phase-in option had been available, the general residential ratio could have been adjusted marginally to, as an

[ Page 7812 ]

example, perhaps 13.5 percent, with a more substantial reduction allowed for Vancouver and a few other school districts. It is not the intention of this amendment to allow permanent differences in residential assessment ratios between school districts, even though this would have been possible under the proposed legislative wording. The phase-in objective would ensure that variations from the general ratio would be temporary.

Non-residential property will not benefit from this phase-in procedure. The regional variations in property value escalations are not thought to be as serious as those for residential purposes. If variable residential assessment ratios are set for school purposes, then municipalities will not have the option of adopting the uniform ratio for their own, or municipal, purposes.

The amendment would become law on proclamation. Variable ratios, of course, are not capable of being used for the 1982 assessment year. Secondly, an amendment is required to validate the reduction in the residential assessment ratio to 11 percent for class 1 (residential) and class 8 (seasonal, resort, recreational and fraternal organization) properties. An initial order was passed in 1980, reducing the ratio from 14.5 percent to 13 percent. Subsequently, by order-in-council, the ratio was further reduced to 11 percent. Enactment of this amendment by the House in due course will prevent any uncertainty with respect to the 1981 taxation rolls.

With those comments with respect to Bill 6, I move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: The opposition did express opposition to the principle, when it was first brought in by the government, that the percentage would be subject to annual review by cabinet, rather than being reviewed here in the Legislature. We didn't see any reason then, and don't see any reason now, why these percentages could not be discussed in the Legislature when the minister would have an opportunity to explain why the changes were being made, why they were being set at the levels they were, and also so the public generally would know that this kind of thing was being discussed openly. As it is, the government will prevailed. The decisions are made in a cabinet room. Now the cabinet is going to have more flexibility in its application of property taxes. Although we're really talking about the percentages of the assessment rate here, it all adds up to the amount of property tax that's going to be paid by residential property owners.

We're opposed to the idea that this is done in the cabinet room rather than in the open arena of the Legislature. But as the minister has said in answer to other concerns we've expressed, we may well be opposed, but the government wants to do it this way, and the government will will prevail. It will prevail in this instance, but we're still opposed to the idea of making the decisions behind closed cabinet doors.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I accept the essence of the comment made by the hon. member for Nanaimo. However, in a situation where property values are rising and falling at a rather dramatic rate — and that is perhaps an understatement when we see what happened in Vancouver particularly, and in Greater Victoria and other parts of the province — I think logic suggests that the government of the day have the opportunity to examine at the latest possible moment in the year preceding the assessment year in question, in order to determine which classes of property may have experienced a significant change or little change in either direction. I think none on this side would disagree with the principle of attempting to set the ratios by the Legislature, but I frankly don't think that is possible. It is a decision which must be taken by elected people at the provincial level at the latest possible moment, when all available information is before them, and that might not coincide with the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

I don't argue strenuously with the point made by the member. But I question the practicality of that which he has advanced.

I move second reading of Bill 6.

Motion approved.

Bill 6, Assessment 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

(continued)

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

On section 9.

MR. BARBER: The guidelines published by the minister yesterday indicated for the first time in writing that certain contracts would, as far as the application of wage controls is concerned, exceed 24 months in consecutive obligation. This is not consistent with what the minister told us on the last occasion we debated this, and I wonder if he could clarify. I don't have the documents in front of me; we've just sent out for them. However, as I recall, the second to last paragraph on the front page of that document indicated that certain contracts will be covered and governed by this section and by the act generally for a period exceeding 24 consecutive months. Could the minister tell us why this apparent change in policy, which contracts specifically he's referring to, and what other changes along similar lines we might anticipate with the publication of the next guidelines?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, this would be a more appropriate debate under the section later in the bill dealing with regulations, inasmuch as under the guidelines that are dealt with in section 9, the parties would be subject to the program for a maximum of 24 months. The extension possibility exists under another section, not under section 9.

MR. BARBER: This is new information for the committee. The minister had indicated clearly, not centred on the issue of which is a regulation and which is a guideline, that the maximum period of control proposed under this bill would be 24 consecutive months, period. There was no qualification previously offered. There was no variance earlier suggested by the minister. He said plainly that the maximum period was 24 consecutive months. I recall, Mr. Chairman, that in debate on this earlier my colleague from

[ Page 7813 ]

Coquitlam-Moody raised the possibility that some contracts may be governed, by virtue of peculiar circumstances, for as long as 48 months. The minister said no, that wouldn't happen. He said specifically that it was only 24 consecutive months, period, regardless of the contract and ignorant of the peculiarities.

I think it is appropriate under this section. We will certainly debate it again under another. Nonetheless, we raised this subject earlier and debated it many times earlier: the period of application of the guidelines. If the minister is saying that a separate law, so to speak, will apply to those contracts that are regulated rather than guided by section 9, then we'll have to bring it up under another section as well. I recall clearly the minister as saying that the maximum period of obligation under this section and under the bill was only 24 consecutive months, but the new advice published just yesterday by the Minister of Finance gives a different impression. Once again I ask the government whether or not this is in fact a new policy. It's certainly news to this committee.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to discuss this when we reach the section dealing with regulations. I repeat for the first member for Victoria that section 9 deals with guidelines. I have said that repeatedly in the course of debate on this section. I restate the position with respect to guidelines: they are subject to the program for only 24 months — a maximum of 24 months. I do not know how I can respond further under one section of the bill which deals only with the guidelines. I have said on a number of occasions in this House, and in this committee, that there are two distinct sections of the program, if you will, as opposed to sections of the bill. One is the guidelines with flexibility, with encouragement for parties to reach a settlement between themselves. The other, straying out of section 9, is the much more stringent regulations section, and that comes later in this debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not want to frustrate debate, but the minister makes a good point and we must observe standing order 61.

MR. BARBER: I wonder if the minister could advise the committee whether or not he would be prepared to follow this debate under section 17, which is the opening section of part 3, entitled "Compensation Regulations." If he's agreeable to that, so are we.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, of course. I assume there will be debate on a number of sections which follow this one.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Section 9 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 25

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

On section 10.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Sections 11 through 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

MR. HOWARD: Under the old system of the relationship between the government and members of the public service, it was a standard practice for a cabinet, out of its generosity and mostly at election time, to offer adjustments in salary to members of the public service. There was no collective bargaining, no requests, no pleas and no examination in public about the wages, hours and working conditions. There were no discussions and no negotiations. It was a unilateral decision on the part of government in the old days to give or not to give increases in salaries and other benefits to public servants. Unless the government felt there was some rationale for doing it.... Often the necessity of increasing public servants' salaries coincided with electoral events. It seemed to have been designed to attract votes from the public servants rather than to deal with them in an honourable and free collective bargaining way.

I see within this particular bill and this section the seeds for the end of collective bargaining, certainly the end of free collective bargaining. The idea of free collective bargaining encompasses within it the function of each group to go their best lick during negotiations, to make the best case they can for their position, hopefully to have the matter resolved by mutual agreement and, if not, then sometimes by an outside force such as arbitration or a final collapse of any contestation that may take place.

Free collective bargaining is finished by this bill and by this section. Collective bargaining itself, free or otherwise, is in jeopardy. It is a very easy next step to go from the intrusion of the cabinet by way of regulation into the wages, hours and working conditions of people in the public service to restrictions of an even greater, more impinging nature and to the step of final elimination and a reversion to the system that existed in the old days. That is what is inherent in this particular section because it gives the Lieutenant-Governor-

[ Page 7814 ]

in-Council the power to make a decision by way of administrative law — namely, a regulation — to prescribe limitations on increases in compensation or to prohibit any increase in compensation and to do a variety of other things.

I only have those few brief comments to make. They've been made at other stages of the bill and on other sections of it, and in different fashions during second reading. But the fundamental injustice of the legislation is contained within this hammer clause, section 17, in which the government seeks to, in one fell swoop, eliminate free collective bargaining, or lay the groundwork for the elimination of collective bargaining as such. It's a reversion to the old days and system, when politics was the major criteria in the mind of the government about payments made to people in the public service.

I don't think the section merits any questions posed to the minister about what it means or doesn't mean. We tried that with section 9, and eventually wrung from them some kind of public document about what the guidelines were and what the regulations are likely to be. There's no point in going through that exercise all over again. I simply want to say that this particular section, and the bill, are totally unacceptable.

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't think the points made by the member for Skeena should go unanswered in the House, even as we get down to one of the critical sections in the bill, because they bear on the larger responsibility that each of us as elected members has to the public at large, who support our activities and those of all who derive their wages and benefits from the taxpayer. Those people are not subject to the forces which acted as a discipline and as a restraint in the early days of trade unionism, where it was the marketplace and the risk of employment itself which acted as the governor upon an excess of union wage demands.

Those of us who have acted as the elected representatives of the taxpayer have provided shelter and protection for those in the public service. It is no better demonstrated, Mr. Chairman, than in Canada as a country today. While the recession — some would say depression — rages across the country, and while it becomes a test today of the economically fit, the least touched city and region of our country is Ottawa — protected from the realities of the marketplace by taxpayers of the country who have no choice but to pay their tribute to Ottawa or to Victoria, or face severe penalties as defaulters in society. Does it matter whether or not they can make the mortgage payments on their House or whether they have a job? No, their first demand is that they pay their tribute to governments so that governments can then spend on people who are employed as the servants of the taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, it gets right down to this fundamental point: are the people in the public service the servants of the taxpayers, or are they to be made their masters? Because if the expenditures in the public service run wild, if they defy the realities of the marketplace, if they resist the common sense which must be practised by every citizen in order for our society to survive.... If these things all take place in the name of free collective bargaining, then the people who are the servants of the taxpayers become their masters. Indeed, in terms of the ability of the private sector in Canada to be lean and hard and fit in economic terms, they become the destroyers, and that can't be permitted.

Those of us who are elected by the taxpayers must show restraint on behalf of those taxpayers. We must treat the public servants fairly and generously, but we must not let them undermine the very ability of our economy to perform, by extracting more from it than those who are our primary producers — who manufacture the goods, deliver the food, provide the vital services...to be crippled by those who traditionally are their servants, and we in turn are the elected servants placed in power by those who pay the taxes.

This bill is not unfair. It's eminently reasonable. In today's context it is generous. No one in authority can fully delegate that authority to someone else. Those of us who are elected cannot delegate our authority fully to some arbitrator who then indirectly and by compulsion will set taxes for those who elect members of the Legislative Assembly to make those decisions. Yet this is precisely what the members of the New Democratic Party would have us do. They would select the public service as the privileged few. They would argue in favour of the servants becoming the masters. They would encourage the delegating of authority which they were elected to assume to some arbitrator or some collective bargaining process, and say that was fair. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that that is an act of responsibility. If you oppose this section, then you are saying: "We do not believe, as elected members, that we should take responsibility on your behalf." That's, in effect, what you're saying. But if that's your belief, admit it. Say as elected members: "We will not take full responsibility. As elected members, we will permit some arbitrator, appointed by your servants and by us, to determine what your taxes should be, regardless of whether you have the ability to pay them or whether the country can carry that weight on its back and still compete economically in the world." Say those things, and take responsibility for them.

Mr. Chairman, I think that issue alone is worthy of a mandate from the electorate. Do you as taxpayers want to have the people you elect take full responsibility for the expenditure of your funds, the commitment of your taxes, or do you want to elect somebody who'll give it all away? By the very foundation of their party they are a party of special privileges — privileges not to the taxpayers as a whole, as with Social Credit, but privileges to the labour movement.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, you're there to favour the labour movement. That's the commitment of your party, not to represent all taxpayers equally. You're not there to represent me or anybody else; you're there to represent one group in society. You're there to represent the labour movement. Isn't that right? Aren't you there to represent the labour movement? Are you there to represent all citizens equally, or are you there to represent anybody who is a trade union member?

MR. SKELLY: Sit down, and we'll answer the question.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, stand up.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Show your pink underwear. You're here for the privilege; you're here to make some groups in society master of the others. You're not here to represent the voters equally. It never entered your minds. They said: "We want to be the master." We don't want to be that. We want to be the servant of all people equally. That's the fundamental difficulty, isn't it? You're not going to serve

[ Page 7815 ]

all people equally. It's against the very tenets of your party. You're here to serve the labour movement. You have to vote against this section because of the people you serve, not society as a whole. It wouldn't matter whether society could succeed or not. That wouldn't matter to you because you're committed to the labour bosses. Aren't you committed to the labour bosses?

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Some nerve, says my former constituent. All we do is tell the truth; but the truth hurts because all the while there's this charade going on. You're trying to pretend that you aren't there to represent the labour movement, that you're there to represent everybody; but that's not the case. You have a fundamental conflict of interest. How can you be in bed politically with one segment of society and then claim to represent all segments? Do you support the Canadian Labour Congress? Of course you do. Do you support the Waffle Manifesto? Sure you do. It's the kind of debate we have had from the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that reveals the true purposes and philosophy of the New Democratic Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Communism! Dirty, rotten, stinking communism, right from the Kremlin.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, no, no. In fact, I think we came rather close. The members should hear what they say in some of the countries that are close to the philosophy you espouse. What's half a mile long, Mr. Chairman, and eats cabbage? It's a meat line-up in eastern Europe. The whole point about it is that everybody is equal. The problem is: how do you get the meat on the table? You get the meat on the table by people producing for society, not by pursuing the interests of one segment to the point where the country can no longer compete economically. Why is it that they can't produce in any of those eastern European countries?

AN HON. MEMBER: They're lazy.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, I don't think so. I think they're brilliant people. I think they're hard-working people. I think they suffer from only one thing: their political system which does not support and nourish those who produce for society. The essence of our philosophy is to encourage those who produce for society and take full responsibility, when elected by those people, to see that their taxes are not raised to the point where they can no longer produce.

This is a thought that has never occurred to the members opposite. Why hasn't it occurred to them? It hasn't occurred to them, because they're not there to represent all facets of our society as it exists today. They want to destroy the producers, and they very nearly did with our mining industry. They want to confiscate it. They want the government to run it all so that more power can come to the people they really represent, which are the trade unionists and not the average voters.

If you believe in equal treatment for all and special privileges for none, then you will be supporting this section just as you support this legislation.

MR. COCKE: What we have seen is the member-for-Point-Grey spectacular that we expect. That minister, who has never been anywhere but at the public trough, got up and talked the way he did today, in terms of special privileges and restraint in terms of this section of our bill. He had a wide-ranging debate on the entire bill, but meanwhile he was talking about section 17. That minister persuaded the Social Credit government to build the most expensive, elitist hospital that this province has ever seen. They're wastrels, Mr. Chairman. He talks about special privileges. He has made his tracks. He has told us he's leaving. Now that he has the university with its own freeway, now that he's got his own university with its Health Sciences Centre, with its own acute-care hospital, he's going back to enjoy the fruits of all his winnings, having been over there as part of that very privileged crew. He talks about privilege. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand up for working people in this country, and I will always do so.

I noted that when that government ran they ran on a freedom ticket. They had the seagull flying as their emblem of freedom. They have done nothing but destroy that emblem of freedom ever since they came to power. Talk about state centralism! He talks about the east European countries. If it were possible under our national constitution, what we see here would probably be the closest thing to this kind of totalitarianism.

Who persecutes the trade unions? It's certainly not the western Europeans, many of whom are social democrats, like West Germany, etc. We find that in Poland — a totalitarian country. We find that in Russia — a totalitarian country. That's what he's applauding. When that member talks about our responsibility to the public at large, I think he had better rethink his position with respect to that responsibility. He is part of a spendthrift group which put us into the problems that we're in today. He is part of a group that has dictated exactly where we are now. Their answer is here. "What will we do in order to show how freedom-loving we are? We will piece off one group of society and let them carry the can." May I remind that minister that the group that he's talking about — the BCGEU particularly — have been satisfied for three years with an 8 percent increase, despite an inflation rate of between 11 percent to 14 percent in each of those years, and that minister says: "Let them carry the can." What rot!

We also see that minister, who's a doctor, sitting back watching our health system being destroyed by a government that has absolutely no intention of doing anything but patting themselves on the back and then trying, with their PR, to win other elections by going out there and saying to the folks: "Look, we're doing our best for you; we're making those public servants servants."

AN HON. MEMBER: Let the folks decide.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I hope we let the folks decide soon. If you had any guts, you'd go right now. Go now! Go now! Go now!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Bye-bye, Dennis!

MR. COCKE: I'll tell you something, Garde: there's a bet any day. I don't know how many times in my 13 years of service in this House I've been told "bye-bye," and each time I go back to the people in New Westminster they give me an increased percentage. Nuts!

MR. KEMPF: And you're still on that side of the floor.

[ Page 7816 ]

MR. COCKE: That's right, and you're on that side of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest this: when any of us stand in this House and talk in terms of servants and masters, that shows a kind of kinky thinking about the relationships of human beings. I suggest to you that unless all of the people of this province are partners in the development of our province, in the development of our ethic, in the development of everything, I don't think we should be determining who is the servant and who is the master. I think we're all in this together and we're partners.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You're dammed right we won't support it. We haven't supported any aspect of this bill; we won't support this section. We won't support anything that is dictatorial and stupid and alienating, and that's what we have here before us. How could anybody ever support this section!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I, too, was alarmed at the remarks by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who, during the debate, rather than dealing with the section, tried to develop the premise that in meeting our public responsibility to provide some accountability and some responsibility in public-sector spending and compensation — and in this case we're dealing with compensation — it was somehow a political plot to develop a confrontation with organized labour in this province. That has been a premise that he has been developing without support, except from a few highly political union people, labour bosses that no longer have the support of their membership.

If anyone has attempted to make political capital out of the present economic situation or over this government's trying to provide some fair and equitable guidelines, not just for the BCGEU but for all public-sector employees, then it has been the New Democratic Party and their bedfellows, who are aligned with them only in an alliance for power. I laugh when I hear the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) talk about their great commitment to working people. As far as I am concerned, all British Columbians, no matter what their occupation — even those members in opposition — are people working in this province. To say that one must have a union membership to classify for some special club and therefore be held in honour as a working person — other than those who are unorganized, in clerical work or in other aspects of working in this province — is not only to be highly foolish but to expect others to be as foolish and stupid as you are, to expect them to believe that. Everyone in this province should be equal, and everyone in this province should have an equal opportunity for some responsibility.

We are in a difficult economic time. It is not unique to Canada, nor to the ten provinces, nor to North America. It is an international recession that touches almost every part of the world. Certainly its effects are being felt more and more every day. Yes, there is a loss of jobs in the private sector where the marketplace has a devastating effect on the lives of people. These are people who do not have the security of public service. Their jobs depend on the marketplace in which the company they work for must compete. The company they work for must make a profit if they are to have jobs.

I find it hard, in this economic situation, to believe some of the things I hear from supporters of the New Democratic Party who, when confronted with who will pay the bills when we talk about public-sector restraint, say: "Take it from those wicked, capitalistic, profit-making companies."

Just recently I was in Kamloops on government business. In the evening, on my own time, I spoke to a political meeting and I was confronted by an organized political group. It was an organized NDP demonstration; let there be no pretence about that. I attempted to speak to that crowd, because as British Columbians they have a right to have an opportunity to listen to the Premier, and to speak to him. I asked them what their problems were and they gave me the usual slogans that you and I get tired of hearing in this House. When I said: "When we're in a restraint program because of the economy, and the public, the ordinary taxpayers, do not have the money to send, where do you expect the government to get the money?" somebody right in front of me in the crowd yelled: "Take it from the big forest companies that are ripping off the province." What a laugh! How stupid! That was a key member of the New Democrat's organizational demonstration. That's the sort of thing they're saying. These are the people who would ask the public of this province for their support as a responsible government. They're not even a responsible opposition.

Someone asked me how I knew it was an NDP demonstration, because they were all dressed up in costumes. Some of them didn't want to be recognized. There was a picture in the paper of a lady made up as the spirit of British Columbia, I think she said. I think she was the spirit of the New Democratic Party. When they took her picture she said: "Don't identify me to the reporter," and with good reason. She was Nelson Riis' constituency secretary. Nelson Riis, the man who would be leader of that rag-tag group over there; the one they're holding up as the great hope for the New Democratic Party in this province. They're the ones who say: "Yes, we're not very good in here. Yes, we don't come in anymore and listen when our leader speaks. Yes, he's lost control of us. Yes, we're not a very good opposition, but we'll be good when good old Nelson from Kamloops comes back." While they're criticizing the Premier of this province for travelling first class to a constitutional conference, who is riding in first class with the Premier of British Columbia? Nelson Riis, the MP for Kamloops. If he rides first-class when he's an opposition NDP Member of Parliament, what would he do if he ever got to a responsible position in government? He'd want to fly the plane.

Mr. Chairman, I want to disagree a little with my colleague the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), because he said that the New Democratic Party's sole commitment in their ill-conceived marriage for power with the labour union movement — the CLC — and that they only serve the union movement.... I want to say that they don't serve the union movement. They haven't served it very well. Their record, when they get a chance at power as social democrats.... As the thing they are committed to, such as socialism, becomes unpopular and unsavoury, they try to find a new label. They try to say that the new word is social democrat.

Let's take a look at social democratic governments across this country and how they've treated the union movement — the workers. Even though they have a deal with those who are hired to serve the workers in the job place.... That's a few bosses whose hands have long ago lost the callouses and are as soft and pudgy as some of the members opposite, who

[ Page 7817 ]

haven't worked in the workplace that they say they defend and represent. Let me see what they've done.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) says: "more millionaires." I know that he tried to be a millionaire in the private sector, the short time he was in it. I know that he tried to be a hundred-thousand-dollar-aire, and then he tried to be a thousand-dollar-aire. When things got so bad that he couldn't make a living out there, he rode on the backs of the labour union support to get to this parliament — the best job he's ever had.

Mr. Chairman, what do social democrat governments do? You say this program isn't equitable and fair in this section 17. Let's take a look at the social democratic government of the province of Quebec. It doesn't run under the NDP label, but I know they're the same. I could quote extensively from an article of a few years ago when the Leader of the Opposition was Premier — when he was Premier Barrett. He said they were social democrats together, and he wanted to marry them in a way which would bring them together. How have they dealt with the public sector in their province? Well, we see recently that they don't allow them a climate to bargain to get a fair and equitable increase. Have they given them a freeze?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. They've said: "You've got what you've got now till January 1, and then we're going to take it away; we're going to roll back your wages." That's a social democratic party. Is that looking after the workers? No, that's not looking after the workers; that's trying to protect their political hides, because social democratic parties in government always live with the results of their own mismanagement, and eventually they have to take more drastic action than the reasonable action we're offering here in British Columbia.

I think back to a just recently defeated government — the New Democratic Party of Saskatchewan. What did they do? Did they put a fair and equitable set of guidelines for all public servants? Did they do like the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who is reported as having said, sometime ago after February 18, when we announced the restraint program: "The government doesn't need it — they just have to bargain tough." I want you to think about that — "just bargain tough." Well, we only bargain with one group, the BCGEU. Did he want us to pick on them and let all the other groups in the public sector take whatever they could get, reach for as much as they could? Perhaps they might have willing public-service employers who would give them everything they want because it comes out of someone else's pocket. Would that be fair? Is that what he was advocating?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Probably.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Minister of Finance says "probably." That's not the way to go. What we've said is that all of the public sector have the guidelines. All of them — the provincial government, the municipalities, the school boards and the hospital boards — have a responsibility and an opportunity to negotiate what's fair in this climate. As we go around this province you can see that many of the people whom I know work in the public sector don't want settlements they know the citizens can't afford. Many of them live next door to someone who is unemployed or laid off in the forest industry or to someone whose business is suffering. They don't want an unreasonable amount. Yet that member and those members are saying that this program is unfair; it's the fairest program that's available. We're in unusual times. This really is protecting all the working people of British Columbia — working people in the private sector, working people as taxpayers and working people in the public sector. We're not asking them to be the victims of a single tough government, but collectively to have an opportunity to share the burden of getting through this difficult period with all the other people in British Columbia.

I with the province of Quebec had been as moderate, as responsible and fair as we are being. I wish the former government of Saskatchewan, instead of ordering back its hospital workers — just one part of one group in that province — had seen fit to provide some fair opportunity so all in the public sector would have been under the same rules. I wish that the New Democratic Party, when it was government in this province and had a chance to prove that it was equitable and fair.... They chose this Legislature to pick one group at a time — whether it was legislating back the firefighters, the IWA, the forest workers, or other public sector workers. They chose that path, rather than trying to deal in a responsible and equitable way with all groups. To say that they represent the workers is the worst sort of nonsense. They're in bed with a few political....

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I'd just like to ask the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) what direction we're going in? Are we adjourning and coming back at...?

AN HON. MEMBER: You sure don't know what direction you're going.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, when it's one of our speakers, they're pretty quick. So I'd just like to know if we're going to play by the same rules. The Premier is perfectly welcome to get back up after lunch.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, the standing orders indicate that our formal time is 12:30. A member is free to speak, of course, for his full time in the debate, and that really is not a valid point of order under those circumstances.

The member continues on a point of order.

MR. LEA: I think it is. Mr. Chairman, because it may be technically 12:30, but every day we stop at noon, don't we? We've done it every day. I guess there are two sets of rules in the House. There's one for the Premier and one for the minions. Is that it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is not a point of order, Hon. member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: As usual, the NDP are free to go any time they want — even to play golf, as they have done while this Legislature has been sitting. They have been caught on the golf course so many times that people think the working tools of an NDP MLA are a bag of clubs and a lot of divots. By their own rules they are sandtrapped by their

[ Page 7818 ]

position on this legislation. What they have attempted to do has saddened me and is saddening every British Columbian. They have attempted to politicize a difficult economic situation and, in doing so, blame it on this government. Yet they are the ones playing politics. It is not new for them to play politics with groups who are in unfortunate circumstances. They have done it before. I remember the last election, with those terrible ads telling people how they would lose their health care. I've got to tell you that three years later the people have improved health services in this province. Everyone knows of the deceit that took place in that campaign.

They want to politicize it and, with a few labour bosses who are political, they have attempted to take on the government. But today even the labour bosses who are in bed with them — those few who no longer represent their workers.... At the recent CLC convention many of them were questioning being in bed with that group. It is finally Sunday morning, they've woken up with a headache, and I don't blame them for questioning who they are in bed with. What do we hear them saying? They no longer even trust them to run the province or even to be the government-in-waiting, as they would like to think. The head of the B.C. Federation of Labour is quoted in the paper this morning as talking about taking militant union action. It is Jim Kinnaird and this is what he says: "We have no illusion but what we are going to have a busy time this summer — and yes, we might well end up in a battle with the government to see who is running this province."

I have a lot more to say, but in deference to the eating habits of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), I would like to move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:09 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

28 The Hon. H. A. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 28) intituled Compensation Stabilization Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 10 is amended by deleting "in Council".