[ Page 8411 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On section 17 (continued) –– 8411

Mr. Barrett

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. King

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Division

On section 36 as amended –– 8424

Division

On the schedule –– 8425

Division

Presenting Reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, third report.

Mr. Strachan –– 8425

An Act To Amend The Vancouver Stock Exchange Act (Bill PR403). Mr. Ree

Introduction and first reading –– 8425

Appendix –– 8426

THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

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

On section 17.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we've waited some weeks to resume questions under this section. As the weeks have gone by, we've become more convinced that this whole bill, as exemplified by this section, is nothing more than political gamesmanship. In our opinion, the thrust of this bill has been destroyed by the extravagance and waste shown by cabinet ministers' expense accounts — which is out of order under this section, but I bring that to the attention of the Chairman.

In relation to this section in particular, I want to point out the events that have taken place over the past few weeks. The federal government is going to bring in a new budget, which, it is widely speculated, will bear on this bill. We want to put it clearly on the record that, rather than wait another three days — they've waited three weeks — to test the political wind, all they're doing is playing political games in calling this bill at this time.

I don't intend to say much more. Everything that can be said has been said. But I do want to say that in the intervening weeks the lack of administrative ability has again been demonstrated by the government in not clarifying this section. As a matter of fact, not only has their particular administration gone wonky, but they can't even control the computers any more. They're spewing out cheques in a time of restraint. Mr. Chairman, that's out of order too, and I want to point out to you that so is their computer, their financial administration and their politics.

My final comments on this section are to repeat what I have said. There is no continuity; you don't know what you're doing; you're playing politics; and you're leaving despair and frustration in the wake of this particular section.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I trust that the same latitude would be given to any other speaker with respect to section 17, which, as the committee will know, deals with the regulation portion of the program. The remarks by the Leader of the Opposition notwithstanding, there has been the very careful development of a policy with respect not only to this section but to the entire bill which is being debated.

It's easy for the member for political purposes — and I have to accuse him of that, Mr. Chairman....

MR. BARRETT: I accuse you of it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: ...to relate to other matters which date from the 1980-81 fiscal year. This is mid-1982.

Mr. Chairman, better that the government of British Columbia developed this section of the bill with care, with great thought and early. This section flows from a decision announced by the Premier of this province on February 18. What have we seen since, Mr. Chairman? We have seen other jurisdictions, other provinces, nations and states suddenly slam the door shut in a panic situation in terms of public sector employees, in terms of public spending; we have examples within our own nation of absolute freezes being placed overnight on the public-sector employee. I thank God that we at least have the opportunity to develop this carefully and with great thought. For the Leader of the Opposition to dismiss this as — and I paraphrase — "political gamesmanship" is not worthy of the debate that should take place, not only on this section but on all sections of the Compensation Stabilization Act.

We moved early, we moved with care, with caution, and with regard for those employed in the public sector of British Columbia; not in a panic, not blind, meeting overnight and making an announcement one morning, as has happened elsewhere. I think it is important to bear that in mind in this debate and in subsequent debates with respect to the compensation stabilization program. As the member who has taken his seat knows, the newspapers have been full of crises elsewhere, and that is the difference between this administration and other governments where it has been found necessary to take dramatic and sudden action.

MR. BARRETT: Just a few brief comments, and we'll pass on to another section. Mr. Chairman, I have to respond to the minister saying that it has been handled with care, and no midnight meetings, and no announcements. The minister has a selective memory. What destroyed the credibility of this section were the announcements made every 24 hours in the corridor by the Premier, changing the figures while that minister was struggling with the bill in the House. You've got a selective memory. I pick up the paper every morning, and they get a scoop from the Premier running down the hallways saying: "Maybe it's nothing. Maybe it's 4 percent. Maybe it's 6 percent." You think we've forgotten that? You apparently have. It was panicsville every single day in that corridor, and you were in the heat in this chamber.

HON. MR. CURDS: Nonsense!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: What number would you suggest?

MR. BARRETT: There they go. Could you show some decorum and restraint in the debate, please?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You're waving your arms like a raving maniac.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. First I will ask the Minister of Forests to withdraw the remark. That is not necessary in this debate.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I said "like" a raving maniac. Frankly, I have nothing against raving maniacs, but I withdraw.

[ Page 8412 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The absolute withdrawal is necessary and has been given.

I would advise all members that only one member at a time is permitted to speak in debate, and right now that member is the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I will never comment on self-descriptions by any minister, particularly when he says that he's got nothing against his self-description.

If I may go on — without interruption from people who will not stand up in the debate and participate — I just wish to remind the minister that the credibility of this section was destroyed daily in the hallway: as I described it, panicsville. After reading one newspaper the Premier would come into the hallway and make an announcement. The best thing that's happened regarding the government's position on the bill is that the Premier has decided to stay away instead of acting erratically on this and other legislation, with his statements in the hallway. You've decided to embark on this course; that's your decision. In my opinion it was a political decision from day one. Nothing proves that to me more than the manner in which you've called it back now, rather than showing a sincere — as you stated — interest in what was happening nationally. You're not kidding anybody.

In terms of what's taken place up to now as bargaining by the government under this section, as far as we're aware, there has been no serious bargaining, from the government's point of view, with the civil servants. It's my opinion that you're deliberately heading for a confrontation with the civil servants — looking for an election issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're wrong.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, I may be wrong; I've been wrong before. But I'm not ashamed to admit it when I'm wrong. I've been wrong many times in my life, and I've not been ashamed to admit that. I hope, as I've gone through life, that I learned from my mistakes. I worry about people who when they're wrong, are too weak to stand up and admit they've made a mistake. Be that as it may, I don't profess to be perfect. I have human fallibilities, unlike other godlike figures who have impressions of themselves.

We're dealing here with nothing more than a political bill designed to look for an issue for the political survival of this government. The minister talks about careful, and I want to repeat his words: "better to be prepared." You sure as heck haven't been prepared for the expense accounts, the clean-up mess, and you've had weeks to do that. You're the one who related to that. I find no preparation; it's purely politics. You're playing with people's lives, dividing our society and showing no leadership to bring people together to deal on a united basis with this kind of problem. The whole thing has been a sham.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. Leader of the Opposition says that it's a sham and he says that it's gamesmanship. This is possibly one of the most important issues in the last 25 years, and his only contribution to the debate is: "It's a sham and it's gamesmanship." He has not offered one single, solitary constructive alternative. He gets into the prurience of Pouilly Fuissé and that seems to be the only thing that can satiate his appetite.

This section, Mr. Chairman, establishes the regulations, and the regulations are the second mechanism within a measure that is intended to do nothing more than further establish the process of reasonableness and fairness and sharing the load during very difficult times in our country. I think we need more of substance from the official opposition, and if it's not possible for us to obtain more of substance from the leader of the official opposition, let's hope that some of his colleagues can contribute something of substance to the discourse this morning.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the government and, I'd say, all my colleagues are to be commended for their manifest demonstration of responsibility and of leadership. It is called for and greatly needed at this highly critical time in the history of our nation. As the Minister of Finance mentioned a few moments ago, would that other administrations and other provincial governments and the national government — which is primarily responsible for our present Canadian malaise — had acted in such a commendable manner. It's regrettable that they didn't.

Looking at this section and its encompassing but very reasonable regulatory authorization capacity, one can easily make the analogy that it is just not good enough for a fire department, in the middle of a three-alarm blaze in gale-force winds with trucks and pumps and hoses and water at the ready, to just sit by and say: "Let's wait, boys. Let's hope it goes out." The position of the NDP is: "Let's wait, boys, and just hope something better will turn up." The Micawber party over there. The policy of the New Democratic Party insofar as this bill is concerned, I think, with all respect to them, constitutes a dereliction of their duties. Indeed, it would be a dereliction of the duty of the Minister of Finance if he chose to act in such a fashion, but he has not abdicated his responsibility, and that's why he has brought forth this measure.

We have seen them, not only in the discussion this morning but in the discussions on other sections which I am not going to refer to — but manifested this morning by the hon. Leader of the Opposition — in extreme discomfort, because they're absolutely floating in a sea of ambivalence. They don't know whether to support it or walk away from it. When the Leader of the Opposition gets up, he's going to say: "Ha, ha, the old Liberal stance." If that happens to be the old Liberal stance, boy, are you riding the fence on this one. You have nothing to offer, no constructive alternatives, just waffle, waffle. Ten years ago today, on June 24, 1972, that great New Democratic Party in Ontario expelled the Waffle Manifesto, but unfortunately they let them remain in B.C., and they're still here. They're one of the most dangerous, ultra left-wing movements we have ever seen in this country.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who signed it?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The gentleman over there is smiling and is in good humour. He only signed it, he said, because people couldn't talk about it unless he signed it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I strayed, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again, I encourage all hon. members that if we are to have a debate on this section at all, each member speaking must bear in mind that we must be

[ Page 8413 ]

strictly relevant to the section before us. I commend that to all members.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I accept the admonition, and thank you for it.

Nobody likes restraint. After a number of very good economic years society has become accustomed to excellent times, but we've got to hold our expectations in check. It's just that simple. We have to face reality, because if we don't, Mr. Chairman, I can assure every member in this assembly and the people of our province that the bankruptcy of our lifestyle could be assured right across our country. We've seen leadership demonstrated in this bill. We see spectacular leadership demonstrated in this section. I intend fully to support it. Once again, I'd like to commend my colleague for having not only the foresight but the fortitude to bring it forth.

MR. BARRETT: I've enjoyed the few words the member said, speaking strictly to this section. Yes, it is the same old Liberal stance: in bed with Trudeau right through this bill.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I told you that you'd say that.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but you didn't have the second part. You're Trudeau's agent in wrecking the economy of this country, and that was manifest in this bill. You've been playing games with the federal Liberal government all along.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Garbage! You wanted to sell out our natural resources and bankrupt B.C.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I guess Trudeau doesn't want him because he's got mono.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Every member will have an opportunity to take his place in debate. At this time, the Leader of the Opposition has the floor, and he will be permitted to make his remarks without interruption.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, it's a lovely morning. I sat here quietly and listened to all the things they said. None of them made sense. As soon as I get up and make sense, they start screaming at me. I've never seen them so unnerved.

The fact is that this is Trudeau-inspired legislation, and a deal was made, and you're the frontrunner of the Liberal federal policies. That's why this section is here. That's why we're debating it today. You've been playing politics with this bill all along. If you really meant this, you'd do something about prices, mortgage rates and interest rates in this province, but you've not lifted a finger about that. In terms of your own expenses, you've been squanderers and extravagant right across the board, blowing money like it's going out of style, spending money in New York and living it up, and then telling other people to behave themselves.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, if we are to conduct a debate according to the rules of the House, then it's the responsibility of each member to bear in mind those rules which guide us in committee. The rule that primarily guides us in committee is strict relevance. Members are tending to stray somewhat from that rule.

MR. BARRETT: It is true, and I agree, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the point you just made is my point of order. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom), in his discussion on section 17, simply asked the Leader of the Opposition if he would perhaps suggest what his guidelines were. I suggest that if the member were to do that, we could get into section 17 of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Again, each member will have an opportunity to take his place in debate at the appropriate time.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, speaking strictly to this section, the old pancake party over there.... The pancake legislation in this section — just lie there flat and hope that something happens — is all being announced in the hallway, not in here. Day by day the Premier made erratic statements in the hallway about this section in terms of what the compensation would be — erratic statements, and they've still not been clarified. I understand how the Premier is ill at ease. He couldn't show up yesterday. The pressure is heavy on you — these are serious times — and you have my sympathy. But the fact is you've destroyed the whole credibility of this bill by the erratic statements made in the hallway on this section.

There is no more belief that this government had anything planned with this bill other than politics. You've been playing politics from day one, that's all. You've not shown one whit of interest in people who are losing their homes because of high mortgage rates, not one whit of interest under this section in controlling prices, not one whit of interest under this section of doing something for people who have lost jobs in this province. You can make all the speeches you want on this section, but when you talk about wanting to be in government.... When you took over, you said you were going to really handle this economy. You've done nothing. And now you've picked out a group in our society and said: "This is the group that we're going to use for political purposes." Straight Liberal politics.

What did we propose? We proposed 26 steps for economic recovery, which we distributed, and there has not been one bit of debate from that side on our proposals to get the economy moving in British Columbia. All this rhetoric and nonsense here in this committee this morning isn't going to save one job in British Columbia; it's not going to save one home in British Columbia; it's not going to help the 5,000 people out of work in Alberni or the 18 percent unemployed up in Prince George.

You can talk all you want about attacking the New Democratic Party, but it's your system that brought the economy to its knees in British Columbia. You've been in power for six years. You've blown money by your example — the squandering of money with extravagant trips all over the world — and then you come back here and tell people that they should behave with restraint, on the basis you state in this section. Nonsense! Say everything you want, but no one believes this government anymore anyway. The evidence of the last few weeks of how you blow money personally.... The only one who doesn't is the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). He goes up to Cariboo and looks after his riding — a good minister.

Interjection.

[ Page 8414 ]

MR. BARRETT: I need a little help in my constituency, Mr. Minister — Cassiar Street; you take care of them.

The rest? Come on! You've got a political crank — not the Premier, a handle — and you're playing it for all it's worth. But you're not kidding anybody. Cheap, sleazy politics has been the measure of this government around this section, and there is no way you can erase it, including all the yelling of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland).

You say you have this plan. There has been nothing but contradiction, separate statements and different interpretations of this section day by day, until finally you've got some sense together and pulled the debate off. The only reason you pulled it back now is that you think MacEachen is going to do something half-hearted like you've started doing. You're nothing but a group of regenerative Liberals growing little arms here and little arms there. You've been dead on Trudeau politically and economically for the last eight months. You've got one month to go, and we'll see what's born out of it. I want to tell you that you're nothing but a bunch of Liberals in disguise. You've been taken over by the Liberals who have crossed the floor. You believe in Trudeau's economic policies, as shown by this section. You've got no leadership and no will to save homes or jobs in this province....

I want to tell you — and this may come as a surprise to the member for Point Grey — that we don't intend to support this section.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I've heard an awful lot of pathetic debate by the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber, but I think with his performance this morning he has outdone even himself. I really begin to wonder what those socialists over there are thinking. I really begin to wonder whether those socialists over there are in the same world.

MR. HOWARD: I can't hear you, Jack.

MR. KEMPF: Get the mud out of your ears, Mr. Member for Skeena, and you probably will.

Mr. Chairman, we have in this province and in this country — in fact, all over North America and the world — a recession of major proportions.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What about Omineca?

MR. KEMPF: Yes, in Omineca as well.

Mr. Chairman, we're here debating an issue which would begin to put the lid on government spending in this province. We are debating in this section an issue limiting....

You sit there like a Cheshire cat, Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). You laugh about the problems that are being faced by the people of British Columbia out there. On behalf of the people I represent and on behalf of other British Columbians, I don't think it's a bit funny.

In this section we are debating a means by which to put a lid on government spending in this province, to lessen the taxation burden on those people still working out there in this province. As I said before, we have a recession — and I wish the opposition would realize that — of major proportions, not only in this province but all over the world. In this section we're debating a means by which to limit.... Big full page ads taken out by the BCGEU say that we are cutting the wages of the civil servants in this province. They take out full-page ads that cost thousands of dollars to their membership and print lies. In this section we can see that we're not cutting the wages of the civil servants in this province; we're limiting the increases. Yet we see hundreds of thousands of dollars — we see it on TV sets; we see it in newspapers — being spent to try to convince the people of British Columbia — and particularly their members, because they're now going to them for a strike vote — that this government is out to cut their wages. Absolute total lies, Mr. Chairman, through you to the members across the way.

They try to tell the people of Victoria — and I quote from this full-page, thousand-dollar ad: "When you come to think of it, we get a raise, and so does Victoria." Yes, if those people get a raise, more money is spent in Victoria. But where do you think that money comes from? Why don't they tell the people of Victoria the truth? If they get raises, their taxes go up. Somebody's got to pay for it. Do you think we've got a machine in the basement of this building that manufactures dollar bills? It all comes from the taxpayer of this province, and I take exception, as a taxpayer of this province, to such ads. I'm sure that there are many BCGEU members who will pick up the Times-Colonist today and who will also take exception to their money being spent on these kinds of ads, which spread lies in the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: I want to just talk about that for a minute, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. You talk about Broadway shows, you talk about Pouilly Fuissé. How many Broadway shows do you think this ad would buy? How many bottles of Pouilly Fuissé do you think it would buy? I'd like you to ask the members of the BCGEU how many bottles of it you think this ad would buy. Let's tell the truth, Mr. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, in this section we're not talking about freezing the wages of the civil servants of this province. We're not talking about cutting the wages of the civil servants of this province. We're talking about limiting the increases. If the truth were told by the union leaders out there, I bet there'd be a very positive vote taken among the BCGEU members. We're not talking of freezing those wages; we're talking of limiting the increases.

I want to tell you that I'm not so sure, as we stand here this morning and we look at the economic situation in all of North America — in fact, all of the world — that we shouldn't be talking in this section about freezing the wages of the BCGEU, freezing the wages of every man, woman and child in this province, including our own. As I said before, we have a situation of catastrophic proportions in the world today. This section and this bill are an indication of at least one government trying to do something about that. I stand here this morning listening to that pathetic performance by the Leader of the Opposition. The number of his members who are here in the House supporting him is indicative of how pathetic it is. There are 26 NDP members in this House. How many are here? Six. How many of his members are speaking on this? None. He's the only one who has gotten up this morning. He's the only one who has stood in his place and pathetically tried to speak against this particular bill. They stand and speak against this kind of action by a responsible government at a time when private-sector workers are facing a level of shutdowns and layoffs never seen before in this country.

[ Page 8415 ]

MR. LEA: Under your government.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, and you blame it all on our government. That's just how stupid you are.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that remark. Everybody knows; I don't have to say it. What does the NDP do? They put up as a spokesman that chubby little Leader of the Opposition over there who can only muster all their....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Personal allusions in debate are totally out of order.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw "little."

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I've been on a diet.

MR. KEMPF: You'd never know it by looking at you.

At a time when the private-sector workers are facing shutdowns and layoffs, the NDP stands in this House and speaks against governments trying to put a lid on its spending. They incite their friends to take out ads to try to make the people of this province think the government is cutting the wages of the BCGEU. That's not so. This particular section of Bill 28 makes that very clear. What does the NDP do? They spend hour after hour, not putting forward some meaningful figures but.... Is that all you can do, Mr. Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) — show little pictures in this House? Why don't you get up and speak on this section? I'll sit down in a minute or two, when I've had my say. Then I want you to get up and speak and show your little pictures.

They're not putting forward any meaningful ways for economic recovery in this province. They're not telling us what they would do, apart from spending money, to get over these economic hard times. I can just imagine what it would be that those members would do were they in government at this particular time. Would they borrow money and spend their way out of this problem? I can just imagine. It was difficult enough picking up the deficit that we acquired when we came into office after their three and a half years as government; I can imagine what they'd do during these times. They borrowed and spent themselves into the hole during good times; so what would they do during these times?

They'd mortgage the souls of our children, and our children's children; that's what they'd do. They would go the route of the federal government in order not to bring in measures such as limiting increases in civil servants' wages. They'd borrow and mortgage the souls of our people far into the future. They'd go the route of the federal government: over $100 billion in debt; with interest on long-term debt amounting to $16.7 billion in this fiscal year alone. The money that is going to pay interest on long-term debt today would go a long way if we spread it among the ten provinces. That's over $1.5 billion each that those provinces would receive, but it's being spent for naught — to pay the interest on long-term debt. That's what you'd do, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. You'd borrow your way out of this problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, the debate is now clearly recanvassing what would have been better discussed in second reading. We're now going much further than the rules of the House allow, and I must instruct the member to return to section 17 so we can conclude the debate in order.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll go back to section 17. I'll be in order as much as the Leader of the Opposition was.

We're debating a solution to the ills facing our province today — ills which the members opposite would like to blame totally on the present provincial government. But the people of British Columbia know better, and we will see that in the days to come.

What do the NDP do in this chamber during this time? They waste the time of this assembly.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: They waste time talking about $37.50 bottles of wine, Mr. Member for New Westminster. That's all I've heard day after day and week after week in this chamber. They whine about wine, Mr. Chairman. It can be likened to Nero fiddling while Rome burned. They sit here day after day and talk about bottles of wine and trips to New York City. They're not facing the realities that face the people of British Columbia. People out there are hurting. They are being laid off. World markets are drying up, and they want governments to spend yet more. They want to see the BCGEU get their 28 percent, or whatever it is they're asking for. Well, it's not there. What do the NDP do about it? For so long they have done things purely for political purposes, and they can't get out of that rut. They are accustomed to being in that gutter, and there is no way they can get out. Mines are closing, sawmills are reducing shifts and small businesses are going bankrupt — and we've even heard that from the other side of the floor.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, they are, hon. member. What should we do? Raise their taxes to pay more to the 40,000-plus civil servants of this province? Is that how you're going to fix the whole matter? Is that your response to it?

Mr. Chairman, they try to inflame their friends in the union executives to print these thousand-dollar ads. I don't know what an ad like this costs; I don't know what those ads I've seen on television cost the BCGEU members — hundreds of thousands of dollars, I suspect.

MR. BARRETT: They should have supported the Canucks. Are you saying they should have spent $14,000 supporting the Canucks?

MR. KEMPF: Are you against supporting the Canucks?

MR. BARRETT: You bet! Not $14,000 worth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair is bound by the rules of this House. The rules simply state that we must be strictly relevant to the section. We are not going to have a recanvass of second reading, and we are not going to discuss the entire economy of the province under section 17. Strictly relevant means exactly that. Simply referring to section 17 when a member discusses a matter that should be discussed under general debate is not in order. I

[ Page 8416 ]

advise the member now speaking to return specifically to section 17.

MR. KEMPF: On section 17 of Bill 28, this morning we are debating the government putting a lid on their spending during difficult times — times in which levels have been reached naturally in the private sector. There have been groups of people in my constituency who voluntarily took 10 percent cuts in their wages in order to keep their manufacturing plants open. All we're debating here this morning in section 17 is a limiting of the increases that the civil service of this province can receive in these times. We're limiting those, not cutting them, as the ad said. I think there's a big difference, and I think the members opposite should start to realize that and come clean with the people of British Columbia as to exactly what they would do.

What would you do? The Leader of the Opposition has left the chamber. That's really a step in the right direction. What would that Leader of the Opposition do during these times? Would he increase their wages, or would he cut them? By how much would he cut them? By 10 percent? By 5 percent? By 15 percent? What are his figures? This morning it's incumbent upon that Leader of the Opposition and the very few members that seem to support him to get up in this House and tell this chamber what it is that they would do. By how much would they cut civil servants' wages, or how much it is they would allow them to be increased?

Mr. Chairman, that's all we're debating in section 17. We're debating government during very difficult times and trying to — on behalf of those whom we represent, the people of British Columbia — put a lid on government spending. If I listened to my constituents, I would stand here this morning and ask for a freeze not only on BCGEU members' wages but on every wage and every salary in the province of British Columbia. That's what they're asking me to do. They're saying 8 to 14 percent is too much.

MR. LEA: Then why don't you do it?

MR. KEMPF: What I want to know from the members opposite, on this section, is what it is they'd do during these difficult times.

I could go on and on. You see it in other jurisdictions. I just saw an item yesterday where the state of Idaho has moved not to increase its civil servants' wages by 8 to 14 percent, but to put them on a four-day work week and to pay them accordingly. Right to the south of us, our neighbours in the state of Washington have put a freeze on civil service wages. We see it in many jurisdictions, but in this section this morning we are debating limited increases to the civil servants of this province. I think that we're doing the right thing on behalf of the people of British Columbia, who really will be the ultimate judges in this matter. The only thing I doubt is whether or not we should be offering increases during a time when possibly we, too, in this jurisdiction should be freezing those wages. That's all we're debating here this morning in section 17 of Bill 28.

I know that the 22 members of the NDP who aren't here this morning are listening in their offices, and I dare them on this debate to come in here and tell us what it is that their constituents are telling them to say. I know that those that aren't on the golf course this morning are listening in their offices. I dare them to come in here and debate this issue so that not only their constituents can see what it is they think, but so it's there for all British Columbians to see. I dare them to do that, Mr. Chairman. I would think it would be to their benefit to have something in Hansard other than the pathetic performance by their leader this morning.

I could go on and on. Really, I want to hear what it is that the members opposite have to say in regard to putting the lid on government spending. They talk about the nickel and dime things; they stand up in this House and whine about wine and talk about $30.50 bottles of wine, but when we really get down to the dollars, when we really get down to the area that's costing the taxpayer of this province, at a time when we can't afford it, millions and millions of dollars, they have no debate, no answers, no responses.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to sit down, having thrown out that dare, and listen to what it is the members of the opposition have to say on this subject.

MR. COCKE: I will take very little time of the committee, but I will tell you what my constituents are saying. They are saying: "For heaven's sake, when are we going to have an election so we can get rid of that bunch in Victoria?" That's what my constituents are saying.

I would like to clear the air once and for all. The government before us now continually criticizes the Liberal government in Ottawa for their debt-ridden situation. This government has been in power for six years, and our provincial debt — let's not kid around about indirect or direct — has gone from $4 billion to $11 billion. That's over a billion a year. For the size of the province, compared to the country....

HON. MR. FRASER: On a point of order, I don't think the member is discussing this bill at all, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair must remind members that we are dealing with the strict relevance of the sections of the bill. Members are tending to stray from the particular section. Certainly the course that the member is now pursuing is really not, by any stretch of the imagination, in order; I would ask that member to return to something that is somewhat close to section 17.

MR. COCKE: I agree, Mr. Chairman. The relevance of what I'm saying is, I think, far more discernible than the relevance of anything said by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) in the last half hour. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. I'm replying to some of the things he said. He said the opposition would throw money at the problem that's before us; and I'm saying the people who have been throwing money are the people we now have in power.

Furthermore, we are dealing now with the whole question of the regulations around Bill 28. When we're talking about those regulations, we're talking about the people who will be making those regulations — the people who have had such a contribution to make to our province's inflation. One reason we're in such dire straits is that they have continually raised taxes. The group that will be making the regulations are an indolent bunch who haven't the empathy, the understanding, of an economy. As far as I'm concerned, they are the people who are going to make the decisions.

The Leader of the Opposition pointed out how the Premier has been behaving over the last few weeks on this particular bill. He runs out in the hall one day and says it's 4 percent; the next day it's something different. Up and down — nobody in this province knows where we are going at all.

[ Page 8417 ]

Instead of putting it before us in the form of a bill, they want to take it out of the public purview, away from the public's ability to see what they're doing, and take it behind the closed doors of that cabinet where they're going to set the regulations. Heaven only knows what those regulations might be.

To hear this group talking about trying to make a contribution to save our economy, a contribution called restraint, must be the biggest or the saddest joke that any of us has heard. As I pointed out, that group has carried us into the depths of debt; and then they turn around and say the BCGEU will bail us out. Who are the BCGEU? The government employees, who, over the last three years, have had an increase of 8 percent a year, while that member for Omineca wallows around, never doing any work, grabbing every nickel he can get. He's getting far bigger raises than any of them got — 8 percent a year for three years. And this in the face of an inflation rate of at least 11 percent!

AN HON. MEMBER: What would you give them?

MR. COCKE: What do you mean, what would I give them? When I get into the government, then I'll tell you. As far as I'm concerned, the duty of the opposition is to criticize a fumbling government.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I think the economy is in the kind of shape that we can't wait that long.

MR. COCKE: That's the funniest point of order I've heard in my life. Mr. Chairman, one thing I would do, unless the entire economy goes one way or the other, is negotiate with any group.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: What is it they say about the noonday sun? What does it do to people? It's not even noon yet.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't trust the government to deal with this particular bill in making regulations. I don't like this particular section, because it's the kind of secretive thing that they're always doing — taking it upon themselves to make all their decisions behind those closed cabinet doors. Maybe the member for Omineca can trust them; he's a wide-eyed little chap. But, Mr. Chairman, I cannot trust this government, which I've been watching closely for the last six years.

HON. MR. BENNETT: As the member for New Westminster leaves the House, being late for his golf match — and the Leader of the Opposition has gone.... Mr. Chairman, I wanted to respond to some of the statements made in this debate by the Leader of the Opposition. I know you will allow me the same latitude you gave the Leader of the Opposition when he was making a number of statements during this debate. First of all, the Leader of the Opposition said that this legislation has been introduced to somehow provoke a confrontation or a fight for political benefit. This is irresponsible, but it is no different from the conduct of the New Democratic Party and that leader, who carry on....

It's not easy for a government to take strong action. I don't believe that governments get a lot of political benefit when they take strong action. It's easier to be negative and politically partisan, to go out and spread all sorts of smokescreens and confuse the people. It's easy for them to get these people to be their allies by putting different interpretations on the Government's intentions. In the short term, it's easy for them to get some political benefit. If anyone is playing partisan politics with the economy of this province, instead of addressing themselves to the serious problems facing not only our province but our country as well, it's the leader of the New Democratic Party and his colleagues in this House.

I think they made a point about government expenses. I'm as concerned as anyone about expenses in government. I know you must watch the nickels and dimes. I also know that that's not our only job. The public is finding it just a little confusing to hear members day after day....

They attacked the member for Omineca. They said he had a very good salary. Well, theirs is the same. I haven't seen them sending any cheques back. And I haven't heard the opposition members offer to meet the offer made by the member for Omineca, who stated that he would be willing to take a freeze on his salary. Perhaps it's because they question the fact that he gets the same salary as they do and made that offer. Perhaps they will get into an auction and will beat the offer he made to take a freeze on his salary today. It must be of interest to them, because they mentioned it specifically. Perhaps we'll hear from them about what they would recommend members of this Legislature do in respect to the amount of public money that goes to compensate us for our service to the province. I will certainly be listening very closely. The government wishes to allow the members to provide a leadership role in this regard.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What has the Leader of the Opposition done? They've spent almost all of the past three months in this Legislature...

MR. SEGARTY: Talking about a bottle of wine.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...not on frivolous things, on serious matters. But the point has been made. Now it's not only the public but also their own members out there who are wondering just what they're doing to earn their money here in this Legislature and what they're doing to be a part of the solutions that are required in this province and in our country. It’s an unusual thing when reports in the media suggest that the Leader of the Opposition had to apologize at a nominating convention of his party in Kamloops just recently for spending all their time talking about expense vouchers and not addressing themselves to the problems of the people of this province. I think they've hurt themselves by the very fact that they have not addressed these problems. The Leader of the Opposition calls us a pancake party. At the same time, as he was a signer of the Waffle Manifesto, let me remind him that a waffle is nothing more than pancake with a lot of holes in it. No matter how much syrup they put on the NDP waffle, it still tastes like baloney to the people of this province.

I was surprised at the good humour that went on in this Legislature between the member for Omineca and the Leader of the Opposition. I don't think the member for Omineca should have described the Leader of the Opposition as "short and dumpy." I think it was incorrect for him to do that. The Leader of the Opposition was quite right to point out to the members that he was on a diet. I want the public to recognize

[ Page 8418 ]

how his restraint program is working personally, and how one he implemented would work if he tried to bring one in, in government.

To get to this section of the bill, the very principle behind this section and bill is not to pick on the BCGEU, as some members of the opposition have said. It is to provide guidelines for all of the public sector. It has been suggested by some of the New Democratic Party members opposite that if the government wanted to be tough and show leadership, all we had to do was to negotiate firmly and toughly with the British Columbia Government Employees Union. These are good workers. They work hard for the province. But if we, as a government, chose to deal firmly and toughly with just those employees, that would not be fair to the other public employees; other public employees and public-sector managers and negotiators may not feel their obligation to try to bring some reason to the rate of increase of settlements in the areas for which they're responsible, whether it be municipal, schools, hospitals or whatever.

B.C. government employees are only about 20 percent of the total number of people working in public-sector employment in this province. I don't like the suggestion from the New Democratic Party that we should pick on them and penalize them. It is quite correct that they have had a very responsible contract over the last three years. As a government, we refuse to follow the course of action that's been suggested by the New Democratic Party. We didn't want to pick on the BCGEU, nor any public-sector union. What we did want was to allow them the opportunity to show some responsibility and restraint and to give them confidence that union by union, group by group, if they negotiated responsibly — because there were some guidelines — no other group, public-sector negotiator or union negotiator who didn't have the same commitment to restraint and was not as aware or maybe might not care.... The neighbours and friends of these people who work in the private sector do not have the same job security. Many are facing layoffs. Many have faced, and are facing, unemployment. Many are facing very difficult times.

What the guidelines allow is something new and unique in Canadian industrial relations in the public sector. It is not the traditional tool of government that has been used by New Democratic Party governments and others, of simply moving in on a dispute and legislating a group of people back to work, as the New Democratic Party did in Saskatchewan recently and as other provincial governments have done; as in the years between 1972 and 1975, when on at least three occasions the New Democratic Party, as government, legislated against one particular group. What this allows is all of the groups to know what the rules and regulations are in regard to upper limits.

There is some confusion, as is traditional with the New Democratic Party, about how the program works. First of all, the program does have flexible guidelines. There is a procedure that takes place before these guidelines ever come into play — I'm hopeful they won't have to — and that's called the collective bargaining process. That means that we can have settlements well below the guidelines, and when settlements are responsible it will mean that the union and management have recognized that on one hand — on management's side — a responsible settlement would allow them to maintain services. In many public institutions, such as health and education, 80 percent of the cost to the public in these very costly areas goes to wages or into compensation packages. It allows management to make a decision that they have a responsibility to their employees to negotiate fairly, but also to the people who would use the system, to guarantee that those services will be there. And then they also have an additional responsibility to the taxpayer, who is also the user, and that is to keep the costs within affordable limits during this very difficult period.

It is that diminishing private sector that pays the cost of government. Unemployed workers — organized or unorganized — and firms small and large with no profits have no contribution to send to government, as they would like to send if times were more prosperous. That's not only a problem for provincial and federal governments in this country, but for federal and state governments in the United States and around the world. As the economy has deteriorated, the ability of the people — or the business side of the economy — to pay has shrunk also. That means that there has to be some restraint on the demands we make to government, some restraint in the way government provides services, and some restraint by those who have the security of working in the public service in terms of what it costs to provide those services.

Now it would have been easy, as many have suggested, to freeze wages across the board, but I don't think that's fair. They're not freezing wages in the private sector, even though it's difficult. I'm only sorry that in the private sector the work-sharing concept that we have inherent in this bill — and that is, "Restrain your demands and your settlements, and keep your colleagues employed and keep services at maximum level" — isn't being followed in the private sector by everyone. It's a sad thing in our society when we see, not just for the usual economic reasons, groups seeking more for a few, to the detriment of others who may have been part of that group but now have lost their opportunity to earn because a few want to make a little more, beyond the public's ability to pay. That's just as true in the private sector as the public sector. Inherent in this bill is the call for people to restrain their demands, keep services operating, and keep their colleagues working.

So as I started to say, there's an opportunity, before the guidelines that are mentioned in this section come into effect, for freely bargained collective agreements to be achieved, and if they're achieved below the guidelines, then services will remain at a maximum level in this province and all of the people that work in those services can remain working. We're not telling them to do that. I would say it's the responsible thing to do; that's what I've said. What has apparently confused the confused Leader of the Opposition is that the floor can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 percent, because that's what it can be when they are bargaining freely and collectively, before any agreement — after having been struck — would be referred to the commissioner and his staff. It's a test of whether they can meet this challenge for those who are responsible for negotiating agreements. It's going to be a test to see whether self-interest or common interest comes first. It will be a test to see how responsible elected public-sector managers are in other areas of this province — whether it be hospitals, schools or municipalities — and how the people who work there respond.

This section really provides security to the responsible. It supplies the security that allows them to negotiate responsibly and know that someone can't get a 40 percent, 50 percent or 60 percent agreement. It has happened in the past. It means that 40 percent arbitration awards or agreements would not

[ Page 8419 ]

leave them out of their historic relationships. In fact, the very flexibility of the program allows for some historic relationships to be restored that have been lost or changed over the last few years. One thing there must be is some continuing relationship between categories and similarities between the various public-sector workers.

That is all this section allows us to do. It allows for collective bargaining and it also allows some security for the responsible to know that others will not get enormous increases while they are showing responsibility. It's not the traditional reaction of governments to pick on one sector and say, "You look after yours and we'll just negotiate hard with the B.C. Government Employees Union," as the NDP have said. We have said that we want everybody to negotiate fairly, responsibly and hard, and we want them all to know what the big picture is and what the guidelines are. That's what we've done.

I think that members of the BCGEU who work hard for the people of this province should be aware of who is advocating that this government or any provincial government deal harshly with just them while others may be allowed more lenient negotiations somewhere else in the public sector. I've talked to many of them, and I think they like the opportunities for them to be responsible without falling drastically behind others who wouldn't be responsible.

I know they like the idea that we're not talking about rollbacks, as there will be in Quebec in January. Quebec has one of two social democratic governments in this country, and they are going to roll back about 19 percent of wages to the workers. I know the BCGEU like the fact that they are not being frozen or rolled back, and we would not do that. This allows for them to negotiate increases.

That's why the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was correct when he said that these people should stop trying to fool the public. The public is tired of the cloudiness that they're putting over a very clear-cut measure that will attempt to rationalize what should be done in the public sector. They talk about cutbacks in services, cutbacks in government spending and cutbacks in wages. In all of those cases there is an allowance for responsible increases. There are increases in the budget, which every British Columbian knows, for health, education and all other aspects of public spending on services. That isn't cutbacks.

The whole program of restraint on government spending, of which this is a major part, is only one part of the economic recovery program. The other part would be as the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned. We are channelling into key economic areas — sensitive areas of mortgages and jobs — to assist people in a very serious way. We have not attempted to introduce legislation that cannot be followed through, as was done in Saskatchewan. That was only cosmetic. It fell apart. That was the advice we received, and it's not fair. When you do something like that, it's worse than doing nothing at all, because you're fooling the people for partisan political purposes. It's the old socialist trick of raising any expectation to get elected and then worry about it later.

It's not fair for a government to do that today. It's not only misleading, but it's the root of what's wrong with the economy. Very promising politicians — and we've had a few promising politicians in this province — have promised the people just about everything. They've also promised them that they wouldn't have to pay. We had an example of that again today when the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said: "You're putting taxes on the people; the people are paying taxes." Who do you think is going to pay for government? It took tough times to destroy the socialist myth that somehow there were great hoards of money locked up in the business vaults of this province — small business and large business. Now they find out that when businesses, governments and markets hit it, there isn't that wealth of hidden money. They've haven't been ripping off the public. What happens when they're hit so hard is that they can no longer sustain themselves and the people suffer. Profits mean jobs. Losses mean unemployment. The zero growth that they advocate means zero opportunities and zero jobs.

Perhaps the myth of the old argument has been destroyed in this country. I was up in Kamloops recently. I was speaking and also doing a lot of things there for the government. I was faced with a demonstration in which people were dressed up in costumes. There was Nelson Riis, the NDP MP whom I know very well. I meet him in the first-class section of airplanes flying from Ottawa to British Columbia. I don't begrudge him that. That's a 3,000 mile trip and a three-hour time change. If he's a hard worker, he needs that time to both adjust and prepare. I just say that at least he's not a cynic and hypocrite like some of the people he has chosen not to join with now. He was mooted as the new leader of the NDP in B.C., but having seen their conduct, he didn't even offer himself for nomination at the recent Kamloops nominating convention. Quite frankly, he's ashamed of their conduct and hypocrisy. His constituency secretary was there all dressed up in costume so you wouldn't recognize her.

What I was trying to explain to these people.... They might have been there to hoot and holler at me, but I'm concerned about them if they've got a problem. I wanted to explain what the government was doing. I asked them where they would ask us to get the money from, and they said to get it from those bloated businesses who have been taking all the money. I said: "Find me a business that has that much money, and we'll gladly put a fair and equitable tax on them." But I'll tell you that there are not many who have that now. In fact, we were the first government and this Minister of Finance was the first minister in this country to do something about putting a tax on banks. It may not be that they've made extraordinarily high profits, but they're making profits at a time when the people who deal with them are hurting.

We did put a tax on them. That's the tax increase of which the New Democratic Party member for New Westminster said: "This government is putting up taxes." The only tax increase introduced in the budget was a tax on banks. Obviously he's confused. He must be thinking of the social democratic government in Quebec. They put the sales tax up to 9 percent. He must be thinking of them as they run and plan for a record $3 billion deficit. They put taxes up on the people and they're rolling back the workers' wages. That's what the New Democratics do when they've got a secure mandate. They didn't talk that way a few years ago when they were seeking election in Quebec. They didn't talk that way in Manitoba before they got elected. These people are talking about creating jobs.

Do you know what happened in Manitoba? They had great expectations. They elected a socialist democratic party, and do you know what happened in the few months since they were elected? The major Alcan project with thousands of jobs has been cancelled. Alberta has cancelled their participation in the energy grid for two years, which was going to feed industry. The only thing left that was taking place under the former government is a potash proposal, and the people are

[ Page 8420 ]

on their knees, praying that the new socialist government of Manitoba won't scare them out too. That's what happens when they become government. They say, like they do in B.C.: "Oh, we're only going to renegotiate the contract." That's what they say about northeast coal. That's what they said in the election in Manitoba. They said: "Oh, we're only going to renegotiate the contract with Alcan." Well, they got elected and they had no one to talk to. The jobs and the company had pulled up and gone, and the people hurt. That's the type of renegotiation they talk about; they talk you right out of jobs.

We're on section 17, dealing with the regulations. Times are difficult and the regulations are necessary. We have to have the ability to respond to the economy. Last January, at the first ministers' conference on the economy, we outlined an economic recovery program in which public-sector government restraint on spending was one of the key elements. But in spite of protestations, nobody accepted or could agree to the British Columbia proposal at that time.

Contrary to what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition, who traditionally has not been a supporter of Liberal governments.... He accused the member for Point Grey of being an ex-Liberal. You don't have a Liberal government in Ottawa; you have a Trudeau government, and the Trudeau government is far closer to the New Democratic Party. They're the group that got together on the national energy plan and the socialization of the oil and gas industry, and they're the group that got together to unilaterally bring back the constitution. The Leader of the Opposition stood up in this Legislature and supported that unilateral action. They've been in bed together, and the Leader of the Opposition has kissed the Prime Minister so often they should have mononucleosis, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is not relevant to the section. I'll advise the hon. Premier that under standing orders his time has elapsed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I apologize. I'll speak later in the debate, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KING: I'm going to try to keep my remarks to section 17, rather than get down to Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and all those other exotic places that the Premier of the province visited in his rather pathetic attempt to justify section 17.

The Premier shows a remarkable ignorance of the collective-bargaining system. I want to set the record straight in terms of what our particular side of the House has recommended.

We think it's a foolish move for the government to set a specific level beyond which wage increases cannot be negotiated. The government has said 14 percent is the maximum that can be negotiated for.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What would you set it at?

MR. KING: If the member can contain himself, I'll explain the position.

I think it's foolish to set the level at all by government dictum, because as soon as that figure is put forward by the government, it becomes the minimum level people will negotiate for. They say: "That's the maximum allowable, and we are going to make certain that we get the maximum." That's the way the collective bargaining system works. The government has set a 14 percent figure, and none of the unions involved will accept any less. That's the way the collective bargaining system works.

It would have been far better had the government got together with their Public Service Commission and the agency that they already pay for, through GERB, to liaise with all of the other public-sector employers — that is, the hospitals and the municipalities of the province. They should have said: "Look, this is the maximum we are going to pay this year because the economy is in tough shape." Had they agreed, as do employers in the private sector.... How do you think the construction industry in the private sector gets together and sets a level which is the maximum they can afford? They do it by private consultation; they do not reveal to the unions what that level is. Then they negotiate within that framework.

This is what the government should have done in British Columbia through the collective bargaining process. The trade unions and the public sector understand that the economy is in trouble. They are responsible people; the Premier himself acknowledged that they are. Why did the government feel it necessary to set a 14 percent figure as the maximum compensation that could be set this year? I predict that by taking that course of action, settlements in the public sector this year will tend to be higher than they would otherwise have been — and that's an amazing ignorance of the process. If you want to hold the line, fair enough; but if you're going to start to legislate, as you have done, an arbitrary maximum, then we say that is unfair. That is scapegoating one group. If you are going to attempt to hold the line by legislation, it should have been a broad package in terms of profits, prices and interest rates as well. That would have been fair and equitable, and I believe the people of British Columbia would have accepted it.

The Premier's convoluted argument about how it's going to work is nonsense. Any practitioner of industrial relations in the province — on the labour side or on management side — know that it's utter and absolute nonsense, Mr. Chairman. I predict again that this particular provision is going to end up costing the public more for wage settlements this year than would otherwise have been the case.

The Premier talked about socialist governments in Quebec. I don't really care what kind of government Quebec has, but it is rather interesting to note that the Premier of the province of Quebec sat as a Liberal cabinet minister in the provincial legislature for years — in the same fashion that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and one or two other members on that side sat in this Legislature as Liberal members. For the Premier to identify all those people as socialists is a bit of a twist of reality, it seems to me. The Premier is reaching to try to find diversions that I think detract from the debate that's going on.

In addition to setting some realistic guidelines that should have been achieved through the collective bargaining process, we think the government has a responsibility to lead by example. What has been the example, Mr. Chairman, is the most absolutely irresponsible profligacy that we have seen by any government over the past number of years in this province. We have ministers showing the most amazing lack of restraint in their travels around the country, in their very exotic dinners and in their choice of the most expensive wines at public expense.

[ Page 8421 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could we please return to the section.

MR. KING: Yes we can, Mr. Chairman, but where were you when the Premier was in Quebec and Manitoba? Be equitable. Don't start calling me to order when you've allowed the Premier to wander all over the nation.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're in the gutter all the time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I ask the Minister of Agriculture not to interrupt.

MR. KING: I'm in the gutter, eh? It's not me that's squandering the public money, my friend, on wine, booze, exotic trips and limousines. That's the gutter, and you're in it. There is a responsibility to lead by some example. Your example is detestable and it coincides completely with your mentality.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The debate is getting quite heated. I will ask the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) not to heckle the hon. member who is speaking. No interruptions please. Perhaps the member can address the Chair.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the government has shown an astoundingly bad example of restraint. It's been chronicled day after day in this Legislature — the waste and the extravagance at public expense. How we can we expect any other reaction but cynicism from people they are imposing restraint on when they act in the most irresponsible fashion — reserving limousines at public expense to junket around New York and attending Broadway shows at public expense to the tune of thousands and thousands of dollars?

How is it that they wish to lead by example when last year the opposition in this Legislature moved motions cutting $82 million dollars from the extravagance of ministerial office? It's a matter of public record. A total of $82 million was put forward by motion by the opposition — not to cut back on ministerial spending but simply to hold the line at the previous year's level for office furniture, ministerial travel and for the luxurious things that those ministers in their trappings of office demand. Each and every one of the government members voted against those votes. That's no example of restraint. When they had an opportunity to lead by example and show some restraint, they stood up and insisted on their own extravagant demands, yet they imposed by statute, on a small percentage of the workforce of British Columbia, arbitrary limitations. Where have they been this year? Just last night a motion was put forward by the opposition to cut $4 million from the Attorney-General's estimates, which represented an increase this year over last year's expenses for travel, for office furniture, for building occupancy costs. None of those areas would have detracted from services to the people of the province of British Columbia; rather they represented the profligacy and the extravagance of this government, which refuses to lead by example, which refuses to accept the same constraints on their spending habits as they are — through this section — arbitrarily imposing on a small group of working people in the province of British Columbia.

Our argument is that that is unfair, that's discriminatory, and in the final analysis — as I pointed out earlier — it's self-defeating. It's a foolish move. By all means, in this time of economic strife and trouble, negotiate with a firm hand as the private sector does. But this government wanted to make this a high-profile political issue. They thought it was popular, because of their political polling, to impose with the heavy hand of government legislation some restraint on someone — anyone — and they were prepared to make the settlements more costly because they could create the ruse before the public that they were doing something firm. It's not going to work that way. It's a foolish move; it's discriminatory; and it's not going to save the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia any money at all. It's ill-advised, and I certainly don't support it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I want to confine my remarks to section 17 to the greatest extent possible. I know that one does not refer to the galleries, but it is instructive to note that through the course of this morning's debate on this section of Bill 28 we have had between four and six members of the New Democratic Party in the House. At the moment I see five NDP members. Clearly the New Democratic Party and its members in this House are afraid of this legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps, at this time, the whole committee could return to the section. A great amount of latitude has been allowed. In fact, we've been in second reading debate, not in committee debate, and I would ask if all members could return to the specific relevance of section 17.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will attempt to follow your instruction. However, the Leader of the Opposition spoke on section 17 and withdrew from the chamber immediately. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) spoke on section 17 and withdrew. The NDP is afraid of this legislation, because they know how the public feel about this section and the bill in its entirety.

References were made to comments about Quebec — other parts of the country. When I heard the Premier speak, those comments were clearly made in the context of this section. What do we see occurring in the province of Quebec? It's appropriate when one is looking at the regulation portion of this bill — this section — to look quickly at the Globe and Mail headline for Wednesday, May 26: "PQ Cuts Pay Raises of 300,000 in Public Service." It is very important to note that. This is from the same newspaper on the following day, the 27th: "Parizeau Believes Workers Will Accept Cuts." Not restraint as imposed by the regulations in this section, but cuts in salaries for the public service.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

It's appropriate also to speak about France in the days immediately following the recent economic summit at Versailles, and I quote in part from Time magazine of June 28: "Within a week after it ended" — and there is reference to Versailles — "Finance Minister Jacques Delors travelled to Brussels to present his European partners with a package of self-imposed austerity measures. They included a 10 percent devaluation of the franc against the West German mark, as well as a four-month freeze on wages and prices." That is the chaos that is happening elsewhere in the world. I indicated earlier, in speaking on this section about an hour and a half ago, that this flows from a carefully considered, realistic

[ Page 8422 ]

recognition of the need for public-sector restraint as announced by the Premier of the province on February 18. Contrary to the hitting of panic buttons across this country and in other parts of the world, most recently in New Zealand, there was a carefully considered recognition that some control had to be exerted on public-sector salaries — not just the British Columbia Government Employees Union, not just those who are employed directly by the government of British Columbia, but those in all sectors of the public service, whether at the local level, municipal level, regional district level, school district level or hospital level. I am so happy that we were able to address ourselves to this problem earlier on, rather than to find ourselves in the kind of panic environment which has taken place elsewhere.

It's interesting that the Leader of the Opposition, as the leader of that party in this House, today offered no constructive suggestion with respect to this regulation section.

With respect to the Chair, he indulged in a number of matters which are not relevant to the section. He ducked the issue contained in this section, as members across the floor have repeatedly ducked the issue and ducked the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to do something that I don't often do: I am going to certainly ensure, not at government expense, that copies of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition this morning are as widely distributed in my constituency as I can possibly arrange, because we see actually nothing constructive, nothing to suggest how this could be improved — and any legislation can be improved. We see nothing constructive whatsoever from the man who would be the Premier of this province. The NDP is afraid of this legislation. We know that, and we know that the public support this legislation. They recognize the need for modest, moderate restraint in the public sector.

MR. HOWARD: What a hypocrite!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, it is normal and usual to hear the word "hypocrite" from across the floor.

That was the one word missing from the Leader of the Opposition's statement this morning. Usually he uses it as well. I take offence at the use of the word "hypocrite."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the member to withdraw the word, which is unparliamentary.

MR. HOWARD: When the Minister of Finance says one thing and does completely the opposite, as exhibited by his votes in this House, to continue a high level of spending, no other word but the word "hypocrite" applies to that minister, but if you insist that I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman, I will.

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

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, while we're having a good debate here this morning on a very important issue in our province, I want to say a few words about what I think about the issue. Following the Premier is quite an act, but I'd like to confirm a few things that he said.

I had the honour to accompany him to the first ministers' conference at the end of January this year. I know that he put public restraint on the table there, and I know that he was rejected by the other nine Premiers and the Prime Minister.

So much for being in bed with the Liberals and the government of Canada. However, following that, the Premier of our province came back and announced on television, on February 18, that we were going ahead with the restraint program that is being debated here today. Following that, the legislation was brought forward that is before us, and we are under Bill 28, section 17.

The bill we're discussing does not put a freeze on the public payroll. It only limits the increase. We seem to lose track of that. I think we have a fine public service in the province. I have further reason to believe that they don't want a large increase. They're very happy in the job security they have. They want to know that they have that job continuing. They're aware of the economy of our province. They're aware of the fact that we simply can't afford to go any further than is suggested in the restraints.

I point out to the committee that in the private sector they've lost their jobs. They don't have to talk about increases or decreases. Their jobs are gone. The opposition says that this government caused all these problems. I want to repeat that we're in a world recession. Certainly it affects our great country of Canada. The other thing I think is relative is: how are the other provinces in our nation making out? With the economy we have, British Columbia is ahead of any other province in this nation today, including the great province of Alberta. I don't think our citizens understand that even with the real problems we have — there are real problems that I don't doubt for a minute — we are really more fortunate than the other provinces in Canada.

Being a little biased, as an MLA from the interior, I'd like to point something else out. We continually hear about Port Alberni and the problem there, with 6,000 people there and only 500 working. I feel sympathy for them. I think we all do. In the interior of the province — I think this is something that needs to be looked at by all of us — the forest industry is working at 80 percent of capacity. I think we should ask ourselves what is really going on when they can do it and they can't in places like Port Alberni. I think maybe we should be dealing with those serious issues.

The other thing I'd like to mention is the great cliché put out by the opposition that under this section things will be decided behind closed doors. My experiences behind those closed doors has been that any major decisions made are public in 24 hours. Then they have to be supported. I don't want the press or anybody to go away with the idea that what the opposition is saying — the decisions are made there and never made public.... They are made public in 24 hours, and the government of the day has to support them and will support them. So don't get carried away with that kind of bunkum as an argument.

I want to deal now, though, with a few other things that haven't been mentioned in the committee, and I think they're relevant here. First of all, in the public sector — and I'm talking about direct government, not Crown corporations — I understand the payroll of the provincial government is about a billion dollars a year. So we're dealing with quite an item here when we're talking about restraining wages; the amount of money can easily translate, if it was a minimum of 8 or maximum of 12, and so on.... But that's added to a billion dollars basic, and that, I repeat, has nothing to do with Crown corporations. That we're dealing with a lot of taxpayers' money is what I'm talking about in this debate.

Again, on behalf of the government, we have put a restraint program forward, and there's no other government in

[ Page 8423 ]

Canada that's done that today. The opposition say we're in bed with the Liberals and Mr. Trudeau; well, I can’t quite follow that, when all they've done is just drifted all around. They haven't any policy about what they're going to do with these things. While I mention the direct payroll of government, I think that mention should he made regarding restraint in where public funds go. Quite frankly, I'm referring to the people that are on public payrolls at the executive level.

I'd like first of all to make some observations about the private sector. I see, as a citizen, that a lot of them at the executive level are overpaid and underworked. I feel the same way about some people in Crown corporations that are overpaid and underworked. I might say that I think a lot of the citizens of our province share that thinking. But as to where public funds go — and I'm referring to health, education and municipal employees — I'd like to make some observations, and tie that in to the salary of the job I consider the biggest and most responsible in this province. I refer to the Premier of our province, at a salary of roughly $80,000 a year.

He — along with the MLAs that support him — makes decisions on $7.5 billion in this budget. He gets $80,000 a year; he works 18 hours a day, seven days a week. There are people in the private sector, Mr. Chairman, that are getting four times that amount and working half as much, and that's why I say they're overpaid and underworked.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even union leaders.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, that applies to union leaders as well.

The other point that I would like to make is where public funds go, and let's deal with Health as an example. Mr. Chairman and members, how can we justify staff members in this province getting a salary of $125,000 a year? That's what's happened. It's $45,000 more than the salary of the Premier of British Columbia. Those are all public funds that we're talking about. It doesn't come off the trees; it comes out of the public treasury.

The other thing is education. I think our teachers are well paid, and I think they feel they are well paid. I have no argument with that. But I sure have an argument when the executive level in Education gets $90,000 a year and the Deputy Minister of Education gets $60,000 a year. What's going on, folks? It's all public money. The Deputy Minister of Education has to oversee the administration of a $2 billion budget, and he finds that people under him are getting $90,000 a year. Mr. Chairman, something's radically wrong. It's no wonder we're short of money to deliver services to the people.

The other sector about which I'd like to speak for a minute is the municipal employees at the executive level. I want to read something into the record that was in the paper yesterday — in that great Vancouver Sun newspaper — to see the nonsense that's going on with tax dollars in our province: I repeat, nonsense.

"The city's ten highest-paid staff members have fallen victim to hard economic times.

"City council voted 5-4 Tuesday to freeze the salaries of senior staff and to deny them the 1.3 percent pay increase they were to get July 1."

Boy, the council were really brave, weren't they?

"But the salary freeze, meant to show that city council is thinking restraint, will only save taxpayers about $10,000.

"The freeze means that city manager Fritz Bowers, now earning $98,724 a year, will not see the raise that would put him over the $100,000 mark.

"The key rate for Bowers' deputy, Ken Dobell, plus finance director Peter Leckie, parks superintendent Vic Kondrosky, medical health officer David Kinloch and city engineer Bill Curtis now stays at just under $85,000."

I'd remind you that the Premier of this province gets $80,000. What's wrong? Where have we gone wrong in our society? No wonder we're in trouble. I want to add something else. The responsibility I have as the Minister of Transportation and Highways.... The deputy minister of that portfolio, who has spent $700 million of taxpayers' money, gets $63,000 a year. Mr. Curtis, who's got all the streets in Vancouver jammed up with vehicles, gets $85,000. I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman and members, something is radically wrong.

Then we get into a discussion trying to blame the provincial government for property tax increases. Well, I guess we're going to have property tax increases when this kind of stuff is going on in our major city, and I suggest it is going on in a lot of other jurisdictions in the cities and so on of this province. I'm not against paying these people a lot of money when we can afford it, but we can't afford it now, and we have to do something about it. That's what this restraint bill deals with, Mr. Chairman. I can't understand them — and it comes up in question period — blaming the provincial government for property tax increases. What do those councils do? They set the property tax rate. This government doesn't set it. They could have reduced the taxes this year. But did they? No, sir. Why didn't they? Because of things like that right here, that's why. They won't face up and make a decision. But this government will, and we'll make it for them too. This restraint bill does that.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Keep going, Alex.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, I'll keep going. I'm just about wound up.

What I'm concerned about, when you have to make decisions.... I want to know what the opposition is going to do. They are mealy-mouthed, wandering all over the place, and they haven't stated their position yet on this bill. Do you know what I think is going to happen, Mr. Chairman? I think they're going to take a powder when it comes to a vote, just like they did on independent schools — they ran out. I don't think they've got enough here to stand and vote for or against this bill. They'll put their running shoes on and beat it. I say to them that now is the time to put up or shut up. It doesn't matter about me, Mr. Chairman, but the public out there want to know your position too. They don't know your position, and they want to know, and time is running out on you. So I suggest that you get up, rather than just hammer, hammer all the time.... Are you going to support this or aren't you? I'm looking forward to a division on the bill — it will be a great day in the annals of this Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 17 pass? The ayes have it. A division is called.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have some real concern: again today the bells in my office didn't work, not at all. It's an important matter to

[ Page 8424 ]

this assembly. I know that there have been people working on the bells in my office for the last four or five days at least, and for some reason they don't seem to be able to correct the problems. I'm not aware whether it's the same in other offices or not, but the only reason I knew there was a division was that someone came up from downstairs and told me. If there is any chance that members can't get to a division in this House, especially on an important bill like this, because bells are not working correctly.... Mr. Chairman, I don't know how we resolve it. I understand there are two buttons....

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I consider this to be reasonably important; I'd like to take my place in this assembly at the time when it's necessary, and I don't want to be precluded from that opportunity, Mr. Chairman. I understand that there are two different sets of buttons, and we're on one set and another set is on another. Sometimes the wrong set of buttons is rung. But whatever the problem is, Mr. Chairman, I'd like you to report to the Speaker, if that's what's necessary, to expedite the solution to the problem so that we can all maintain our opportunity to take part in the affairs of this assembly.

MR. NICOLSON: On the point of order, I rise to point out that both the member who has just spoken and I are out of order, bringing up a point of order when a division is in progress.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Hon. members, the point raised by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) is indeed a valid one. Nevertheless it is perhaps the most key responsibility of the Chair to ensure that members are indeed informed of a vote before that vote takes place. I would advise members as well that the bell indicating the time lapse had been sounded, the doors are locked, and it is now the Chair's intention to take the division. I will bring the matter raised by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) to the attention of the Speaker in hopes that this continuing problem can be addressed and rectified.

Section 17 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 19

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 18.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

Sections 19 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

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

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the second amendment to section 29 standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 29 as amended approved.

Sections 30 to 35 inclusive approved.

On section 36.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 36 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

[ Page 8425 ]

NAYS — 18

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

On the schedule.

Schedule approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 18

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, it was reported again that during the divisions there seemed to be some problem with the division bells ringing in the building.

Bill 28, Compensation Stabilization Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Presenting Reports

Mr. Strachan, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, presented the committee's third report, which was read as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"The standing orders have been complied with relating to the petition for leave to introduce a private bill intituled An Act to Amend the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act, except for late filing but with respect thereto the petitioner has paid double fees in accordance with standing order 98(3). Your committee recommends that the petitioner be allowed to proceed with the said bill.

"All of which is respectfully submitted, W.B. Strachan, Chairman."

MR. STRACHAN: By leave I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

On a motion by Mr. Ree, Bill PR403, intituled An Act to Amend the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private bills.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

[ Page 8426 ]

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 18 (1) is amended by deleting "is subject to the compensation regulations" and substituting "is subject to the limitations on increases in compensation".

SECTION 29 (1) is amended by deleting "an arbitration award that contains a compensation plan" and substituting "a compensation plan that contains an arbitration award".

SECTION 29 (3) is amended by deleting "a compensation plan contained in an arbitration award," and substituting "an arbitration award contained in a compensation plan,".

SECTION 36 (2) is amended by deleting "in Council".