[ Page 1919 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

VIP lounge at B.C. Place. Mr. Blencoe –– 1919

Mr. Skelly

Ms. Sanford

Unemployment action centres grant. Mr. Reynolds –– 1920

Funding for Legal Services Society. Ms. Brown –– 1920

Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 11). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1921

Mr. Stupich –– 1923

Mr. Veitch –– 1936

Mr. Howard –– 1939

Mr. Reynolds –– 1943

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1983

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It is a great pleasure for us to have visiting today in the galleries, Mr. Stanley Stephenson, the consul-general from Britain. I would ask all the members to extend to him a most cordial welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: I have been waiting for this day for some time, because it was over 25 years ago that a very kind couple offered a poor little teenage British Columbian a ride into downtown Mexico City. I have been waiting to repay that debt of hospitality for some time, and it is with great pleasure today that I would ask the House to welcome Señor Ramon Marron Frisbie and Señora Betty Vales de Marron. My son Sean is also with them in your gallery, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PELTON: In the members' gallery this afternoon is a friend of mine from Maple Ridge, a staunch supporter of the government and the Social Credit Party. I would like to ask this House to welcome Mr. George Litauszky.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: My colleague the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) and I would like the House to welcome two couples from the city of Vancouver who are visiting our gallery today, good friends: Elaine and Mel Lorimer and Garda and Bill Cowan.

MR. STRACHAN: I would ask the House today to welcome respectively my second and third cousins; Mr. Stan Robson and Mr. Gary Robson are visiting me this weekend from Penticton. Would the House please welcome these people.

Oral Questions

VIP LOUNGE AT B.C. PLACE

MR. BLENCOE: This afternoon I have a very serious question regarding the government's restraint program. Over the last few months, the government has decided to cut certain programs like the allowance program for the handicapped, the child abuse team programs and a number of services generally for children and families in this province. Yet we have learned that the government has decided to utilize the VIP Lounge at B.C. Place. Given the restraint that's currently in place for the province of British Columbia, I would like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs how much government money the minister spent yesterday at the VIP lounge of B.C. Place during the Edmonton-B.C. football game.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, any expense that I may have incurred there would be charged back to me personally.

MR. BLENCOE: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the minister will table that information for the House.

I have a supplementary for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. On August 11 the minister responsible for B.C. Place tabled a policy statement which said that government members may use the VIP lounge "when conducting government or Crown corporation business." What government business was conducted by the minister and his four cabinet colleagues who were present during the Edmonton-B.C. football game?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to that member that any business that I conduct with any group in this province is private business as far as the ministry is concerned.

[2:15]

MR. BLENCOE: I have a further supplementary. The people of British Columbia paid for that particular stadium; therefore what you do there should be public information.

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The policy statement put out by the minister responsible for B.C. Place states: "A voucher system is in operation for services." Will the minister advise whether any of the services he consumed during the game will be paid for from public funds? If so, will those vouchers be made public?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: All such vouchers are made public.

MR. SKELLY: A question to the Minister of Forests. Did this minister use the VIP lounge at B.C. Place for the Edmonton-B.C. football game on Sunday, and will the minister advise what public business he conducted at the meeting?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, I certainly did attend the game, and I was very happy that the B.C. Lions won that game. Yes, Mr. Speaker, members of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development hosted members of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association yesterday at that football game. I am sure that if my experience there is shared by my colleagues, we had many very interesting discussions on policy matters and things that must happen in British Columbia in the future. I think it was a very productive time for me and, I am sure, my colleagues, and at the same time we happened to watch British Columbia defeat the Edmonton Eskimos.

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food regarding the government's restraint program. I am wondering how much money the minister saved the taxpayers yesterday by wining and dining at the VIP lounge at B.C. Place stadium during the Edmonton-B.C. football game.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I was present at the game. I watched the B.C. Lions beat the Edmonton Eskimos, for which I was overjoyed. As I understand it, the reason for that particular lounge being there is for the hosting of various groups. Yesterday we hosted the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and I understand that any billing that is due to me personally will arrive at my desk.

MS. SANFORD: We have been told that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development was the host for this particular event. Does that mean that he will be picking up the tab for the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and also for expenses incurred by various government ministers? I understand that each seat is costing $80 per game and that

[ Page 1920 ]

beverages would be charged back to the appropriate government department.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The answer to that question is that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development was not the host.

UNEMPLOYMENT ACTION CENTRES GRANT

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that a front-page story in the Coast News confirms that the unemployment action centres are being used by the Solidarity Coalition for offices and organizational headquarters, can the minister advise the House if he has filed any protests with the federal government to protest the use of public funds for this blatant partisan tactic?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I thank the member for that question. The article to which he refers was handed to me earlier, and I thank the person who handed it to me as well, whoever that was. It might have been the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead); I am not sure. It is an article in the Coast News by the unemployment action centre urging all groups to join Operation Solidarity and asking them to call a Priscilla Brown at the unemployment action centre in order to sign up for Solidarity. That only solidifies the need for some answers from the federal government with regard to the $600,000 grant.

In direct answer to the member, I have written to the Hon. John Roberts, Minister of Employment and Immigration, just indicating that there is certainly more and more evidence coming forward that Solidarity activity is taking place in the unemployment action centres. I raised the question with him, too, that one of the opposition members — I believe it was the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) — had raised some serious concerns in the House during question period about the funds being used for political purposes prior to the May 5 provincial election. I have asked him to investigate that as well. I am sure the member for Burnaby North will appreciate that action on her behalf.

I have also written to the Hon. Serge Joyal, Secretary of State of Canada, regarding their $19,000.50 grant to a group which is politically oriented.

I will file these letters, Mr. Speaker, but just paraphrasing, I simply said that we in British Columbia are dismayed about these actions of a federal minister and that we must condemn the actions of a senior government that would provide funding aimed mainly at the overthrow of another duly elected government within our confederation. I cannot but believe that this is an action unprecedented in the history of Canada, and it must not go unchallenged.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would.... Perhaps I have to wait until after question period. I will file these after question period.

FUNDING FOR LEGAL SERVICES SOCIETY

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Attorney-General is as prepared as the Minister of Labour to answer my questions, and that he has all the documents ready to table when he is through as well.

The Legal Services Society is in a kind of crisis situation as a result of the government's financial restraint program. I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions. First of all, in view of the fact that the Law Foundation turned down their request for emergency funding, is the ministry now prepared to give the Legal Services Society some emergency funding? Secondly, did the A-G's representative on the Law Foundation support the application of Legal Services for emergency funding from the Law Foundation?

HON. MR. SMITH: No little bird dropped me the answers to those questions before I came in here, but the answer to the first question is no. That didn't come out very well. It was a long week, Mr. Speaker.

The Legal Services Society has been funded to the same operating level as last year — slightly over $13 million, which is less than they actually got from the government, because last year their deficit of over $2 million was paid off. I told the Legal Services Society some time ago, when I first assumed this portfolio, that there would be no more than the $13 million that was in the estimates, and that they would have to live within that amount. I think they understand that.

The second question: I believe that yes, my representative did vote for that funding and did support that funding. I supported it, and my representative went with that support to the meeting of the Law Foundation.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, again to the Attorney-General. In view of the fact that the Attorney-General initiated a task force to look into the whole area of funding for legal services, and that it's due to bring its report down on March 31; and also that the federal government is in the process of completing a detailed evaluation of the delivery of legal services and will be bringing its report down quite quickly, is the Attorney-General prepared to give Legal Services the interim financing that it needs to continue its job until those two reports are in?

HON. MR. SMITH: The long-term need is really to examine legal aid and the needs, not just on a short-term basis but on a long-term basis; and to examine as well the whole rationale for the priorities and funding of legal aid and the federal government assistance to legal aid, which, while it has been there, has been somewhat wanting, I think, in the face of rising costs and increased demands.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as my critic knows, many of the demands on the legal aid system are demands that arise not only from federal legislation but from new federal initiatives. When the federal government proclaims, as it is going to do, a young offenders act, it will bring enormous increases in the demands on the legal system in British Columbia, and may bring increased demands for legal aid. So I think we have to take a thorough, long-term look at where we're going in this province in terms of legal services for the poor and for those who can't afford it. I intend to broaden the task force that is now in existence and increase the membership of that task force from members of the bar and the legal services community so that we can have some long-term recommendations.

MS. BROWN: Which is a very salutary concept, except that in the meantime Legal Services is in a crisis situation, to the extent that a number of offices in Cranbrook, Vernon, Smithers, Nanaimo and Maple Ridge are closing.

Interjection.

[ Page 1921 ]

MS. BROWN: My question is not nearly as long as the answer that the Minister of Labour gave.

Mr. Speaker, is the Attorney-General going to take any steps to keep those offices open while his task force is embarking on embarking on its very good evaluation? I'd support that.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I'm not going to interfere with decisions made by the Legal Services Society, which is independent of government, to take measures — as they did — to live within their budget.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table documents referred to in question period.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to standing order 25 and ask leave of the House to proceed to deal with Motion 32, which I'm sure Your Honour would like to have dealt with.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, as the member for Skeena can recall, this matter was dealt with last week, at which time it was outlined that the prerogative of the business of the House is at the discretion of the government. Although I have grave reservations that to ask leave is not in accord with our standing orders, nevertheless, on this one final occasion I will ascertain the will of the House.

Leave not granted.

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

Leave granted.

[2:30]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 11.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move second reading now of Bill 11, the Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983, a bill which was introduced in the Legislature on July 7 last.

May I begin by saying that I take great pleasure in introducing this legislation and discussing it briefly this afternoon. Also, I reflect with pleasure on the fact that in 1982 I had the opportunity to introduce the original Compensation Stabilization Act and to hear debate on it. When the Premier first announced the compensation stabilization program in February 1982, it is correct to say that he ensured that British Columbia would take a leadership role in the national effort to rebuild Canada's economy. It has to be observed — indeed, I observed it last week in the course of meetings in eastern Canada and the United States — that this government was the first to recognize that the economic downturn was so severe that direct and decisive action was urgently required. This government was also aware that the economic times were so uncertain that a degree of flexibility was necessary, so that after passage of the legislation the government could adapt its policy instruments to relatively quickly changing circumstances.

Reflecting again on 1982, beyond the immediate and pressing need to combat a severe recession, last year the government acted out of a very firm conviction that British Columbians wanted a new approach to government itself. Those economic hard times brought home a lesson which, as others have observed, the public was well on the way to learning already. It is correct again, I think, in this context to observe that from time to time the public does lead the government of the day with respect to a particular philosophy, or the recognition of the need for a particular act. So the public was again leading the government with respect to the difficulties in which all British Columbians found themselves. The government was no exception through the winter of 1981-82. The lesson was that the indefinite expansion of the structure of government would not of itself sustain economic growth or produce continuing economic growth. In fact, in many instances that structure was impeding rather than encouraging economic development.

It was out of this combination of concerns — the need to fight a serious downturn and the determination to alter fundamentally the role of government — that the restraint-in-government measures of last year, starting in February, were born. The compensation stabilization program was the keystone; it was a key factor in that overall coordinated approach.

This year the government's commitment to change has been confirmed in a very resounding manner by the electorate. Clearly, the government has received a mandate to continue, and to expand, its initiatives in this regard. As the Speech from the Throne indicated, the government has a mandate both to encourage private sector confidence by continuing to rationalize public sector activity and to give taxpayers full value for their hard-earned tax dollars by striving for maximum efficiency and effectiveness in delivering its programs.

All of this, by way of background, brings us to the amendments to the CSP now before the House. It is generally recognized that the program has been an outstanding success and that other Canadian governments have watched it very closely; some have borrowed from it freely. As of September 26, 1983, the office of the commissioner, Mr. Peck, had received 966 compensation plans — a number which speaks to the fairness of the program. Of these individual plans regarding public sector compensation –– 895, or 93 percent, were found to be within the guidelines. That certainly speaks well of the two parts of the program: guidelines and, if necessary, regulations.

Perhaps even more striking than this exceedingly high approval rate is another measure of the program's acceptance. Members will recall that the CSP has that two-stage format: voluntary guidelines — and I've indicated already that the very large majority have fallen under those voluntary guidelines — and the mandatory, legally binding regulations. The fact is that since the program's inception, the CSP commissioner has not been forced to subject a single compensation plan to the regulations. In a year and a half of operation — in fact, it's perhaps closer to 19 months — this is truly a remarkable record. It is a tribute to the commissioner and to the nature of the program, which has, as I said last year and in

[ Page 1922 ]

the election campaign, that element of fairness — that significant degree of flexibility — that is not to be found in some other wage restraint practices.

That's a remarkable record, and so is the level of increases that the program has produced. The figures so far for 1983 show that the weighted average compensation increase in approved compensation plans stands at 3.63 percent. Commissioner Peck and the small staff who work with him in the office of the commissioner are certainly to be commended for that result. I think the public of British Columbia will thank them in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, it should be noted, however, that just as with the rest of the restraint-in-government campaign, we cannot rest on our laurels, because there is much yet to be done. The compensation stabilization program, as this bill indicates, must now be adapted to meet new economic conditions and to do justice to the government's renewed mandate. Underlying the proposed legislative changes to the program are two key — centrepiece, if you will — policy decisions taken by the government. These aspects of the program were always present, but now they've risen to even greater prominence.

First, the government believes that the paramount consideration with respect to setting levels of compensation in the public sector should be the employer's ability to pay. I want to add that this amounts to a recognition that most taxpayers have a decidedly limited ability to pay at the moment — a limited ability to send money to governments, whether local, regional, provincial or federal — and that the last thing the provincial economy needs during these early steps towards recovery is for the taxpayers' spending capacity to be reduced or interfered with, if you will, through unnecessary taxation.

Secondly, the government believes that the fundamental justification for increases in public sector compensation should be, and I would say also must be, greater productivity. What this means in practice is that if employees anticipate receiving wage increases, then they and their employers must devise ways of saving the taxpayer money. In the private sector, as we all very well know, workers have had to face a multitude of controls generated in the marketplace — some cruel factors: bankruptcies, unemployment, layoffs, low or nonexistent wage increases and, in fact, in some instances, wage decreases. When one views the situation objectively, as I'm sure many British Columbians do, it seems little enough to ask employees in the more sheltered public service to try to give taxpayers better value for their money.

With this background in mind, may I therefore run quickly through the main legislative changes to the compensation stabilization program. I realize that this is speaking in principle to the bill, so I will save more detailed remarks for the committee stage. However, I think these are fundamental to the principle: first, the insertion of a purpose clause making clear the centrality of the ability-to-pay concept and specifying that the main justification for any compensation increases in the public sector will be the increased productivity to which I've referred; secondly, the indefinite extension of the program; thirdly, revision of the act so that arbitrators are more clearly bound by its provisions; and, fourthly, amendments throughout the legislation to contemplate decreases as well as increases in compensation and then inclusion of a provision making it an offence to implement the terms of a compensation plan before it is approved by the commissioner.

Taken as a group, it will be evident that while some of these changes could be described as fine tuning, others are more profound and more significant. As before, the amendments to the act will find their way into the daily operation of the program through the CSP guidelines and regulations. Basically, these two sets of rules will operate in the same two-step or two-stage fashion mentioned earlier: voluntary guidelines backed up by mandatory regulations.

There are three broad areas in the guidelines and regulations. However, I think some comment might be warranted in terms of the impact of these legislative amendments. First, the guidelines and regulations will reflect the renewed emphasis on the ability to pay. The responsibility for ensuring that this particular criterion is applied will rest with employers, with employees and with arbitrators. The government's role will be to establish, through the budget process, expenditure targets which will set the pattern for determining the public sector ability to pay.

Secondly, in view of the paramount importance to long-term economic growth of productivity improvement, a productivity factor will be separated from the existing special circumstances factor. This new productivity factor will stand alone as the most significant component of possible wage increases. It may be included at the discretion of the commissioner, and it will have no upward limit. The onus will be on the parties concerned to justify a claim for a higher level of compensation based on that increased productivity. In judging the acceptability of such a claim, the commissioner and his staff will take into account a revised definition of productivity which includes a range of possible changes, such as the removal of restrictive work practices.

[2:45]

Third, the numerical aspect of the guidelines and regulations will be amended. In calculating the changes in compensation, the cost of increments will now be included under the guidelines as well as under the regulations. I want to repeat that in order that members will be quite clear, and that those people we serve will also recognize it: in calculating the changes in compensation, the cost of increments — usually annual increments — will now be included under the guidelines as well as under the regulations. I want to emphasize that under the guidelines — that is, the voluntary side of the program — employers and employees and, where necessary, arbitrators will be expected to set compensation levels on the basis of ability to pay and productivity. These two considerations must be taken into account; they must be considered paramount.

As for the commissioner, when he becomes involved, under the guidelines or at the guidelines stage, he will not define ability to pay. That will be left for the parties to determine between themselves. The commissioner only has the power to decide if the employer has an inability to pay a given increase in compensation. Now if the employer and employee group agree that there is no ability-to-pay problem, the commissioner will not consider this question. In fact, as a practical matter, since the commissioner can only review completed compensation plans, the "ability-to-pay problem" will generally arise only in connection with arbitration awards.

Turning to the regulations, the level of acceptable changes in compensation will range from minus 5 percent to plus 5 percent. The numerical breakdown by factor will be substantially as before: the basic income factor –– 1 percent; the experience adjustment factor — plus 2 percent to minus 3 percent; the special circumstances factor — plus 2 percent to

[ Page 1923 ]

minus 3 percent; and the new productivity factor — an indefinite amount, at the discretion of the commissioner.

The amendments that I have just outlined and which comprise Bill 11 are the logical extension of this government's previously expressed determination to keep public sector expenditure under control. At the same time, the self-administering aspects of the program have been very carefully retained, as has the flexibility of the program, about which I spoke at the start of these remarks. This has been done both to avoid the build-up of a large enforcement bureaucracy and to keep the main responsibility for the program where it belongs, and that is on the employers and the employees themselves. It is again significant to note, and I'm sure that this will be discussed in due course when my estimates are presented, that we have avoided that large enforcement bureaucracy which has been seen to develop in other jurisdictions with a program which has some basic elements of this, but does not have the flexibility which has been a cornerstone of the whole program. Mr. Speaker, we're extending it indefinitely. I'm satisfied that the program, in its amended form now before this Legislature, offers a reasonable and fair way of dealing with a very difficult situation. More than that, I firmly believe that the program lays the foundation for what, in the final analysis, may turn out to be a new and more productive compensation policy in British Columbia's public sector. To do less would be to break faith with the voters of British Columbia,

I now move second reading of Bill 11, the Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a recognition.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have just received a note that Australia II has won the America's Cup yacht race. This is the first time in 132 years that this has been won by anyone other than the United States of America. I think it's a most tremendous accomplishment. I know that all members present today would like to extend our heartiest congratulations to the crew, the designers and all connected with this great victory, and most particularly to our sister Commonwealth country, Australia, and all of its very lively citizens. I think tonight there is going to be a lot of splicing of the main brace and a little more than just fair dinkum. I say well done, and it's terrific news. Congratulations, Australia.

MR. STUPICH: To get back to Bill 11, if we needed anything to convince us, certainly the minister's description of the legislation we are now discussing would convince us and every thinking person in British Columbia that this bill must be opposed, should be postponed, should be withdrawn completely.

If I could sum up very briefly the minister's description, in the first place, I think he would admit that his bill completely centralizes within cabinet any level of salaries paid, not just to the friends of government, but to everyone involved in the public sector — a total number of employees that the Provincial Secretary said at one point in the House was in the neighbourhood of 300,000. It centralizes control of the incomes of both friends in the high places and also of the lowest-paid worker, completely in the hands of cabinet.

Secondly, I heard him say there will be no more meaningful negotiation. There will be the facade. There will be discussions, but they will mean nothing because the decisions will be made by cabinet.

Thirdly, he is saying that our program of restraint has failed completely. Therefore, we are now saying that instead of having this go on for a limited period of time, it's going to go on indefinitely. There's no end in sight, because we failed completely to control what's happening in the province of British Columbia.

I heard the Premier speak in February, 1982. By coincidence, I was invited to speak to a political science group at Malaspina College — the arrangement was made about a month before I was to appear there — the evening that the Premier was on TV with his program. I watched it with the class and afterwards led a discussion in which I criticized the program completely, criticism in which I was joined by everyone present, including the instructor of the class. They all recognized at that time that it was interference in a process developed over centuries, but refined much more recently; a process that has been working in British Columbia, yet a process that the government felt bound to change because the Premier had some grand scheme in mind. More likely, what he had in mind was an election campaign, and felt this would be good campaign strategy. The conclusion of the class was that it was a program bound to fail.

The program said then that the decisions were going to be led by cabinet; not made by cabinet, as they are going to be now, but led by cabinet. The level of income for so many people was going to be established under the influence of the cabinet, and yet it was a program that offered nothing to the people who were going to be affected by it, a program that gave them no indication at all that the government was going to do anything about their cost of living. It didn't say to some 300,000 people in the public sector that the rate of interest they would have to pay when they renegotiated their mortgage was going to be controlled. There was legislation introduced much later that did offer some assistance, but at the time the Premier spoke on this subject he offered nothing to give the 300,000 people in the public sector any indication that the government had any concern at all about their ability to pay.

It's all very well to talk about the government's ability to pay and to say that government doesn't make any money on its own, that it's really the taxpayers' money. But we're talking about individuals. As a group, we do have the ability to pay for certain things, for programs. Even as a group, we can afford to pay for five cabinet ministers to entertain people at the VIP lounge at the stadium during a football game. We can afford to pay that as a group. But there are many individuals in our community who can't make that decision individually when it comes to meeting a mortgage payment, who can't make that decision individually when it comes to buying food, who can't make that decision individually when it comes to paying rent.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I see the Minister of Agriculture smiling about this. I don't know what kind of people he has in his constituency, but I know from personal experience, having talked and listened to many people in my constituency, that many people out there are wondering where they are going to get next month's mortgage payment; wondering how they are

[ Page 1924 ]

going to be able to meet the rent payment when it comes due, or how much of it they'll be able to meet; wondering how they are going to send their children to school. Older students are wondering how they are going to be able to continue their education, because grants are being cut back, loans are being cut back. Educational opportunities are being denied them, all in the name of restraint — restraint that the Premier spoke about as long ago as February 1982, without offering any hope to those people that the government had some interest in their concerns, some interest in the individual's problems in meeting his or her expenses, the expenses of living. When I say living, Mr. Speaker, I'm not talking simply about eating. I'm not talking simply about a place to reside. I'm not talking simply about clothing. Certainly in 1983 in British Columbia we would describe living as being much more than those essentials of life.

The Premier had no concern about any of those problems when he spoke in February 1982. I believe all he was concerned about then was the prospect of fighting an election campaign, and he came up with a program about which there were no details. Mr. Speaker, the Premier at that time spoke for 18 minutes on television. He had nothing to offer, other than a broad description of a program. When he was pressed subsequently by the press, by individuals, by media, by politicians wanting to know just what he had in mind, he really had no kind of program to offer, except that he was going to impose some kind of restraint program upon the public sector and was going to limit wage increases for a limited period of time, because that is all that would be necessary. Limiting wage increases in the public sector for a limited period of time was going to turn the economy around in British Columbia, so it was necessary to implement that for only a short time.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, by saying today that now there shall be no time limit on this program, the government has admitted that its program is a complete failure and they have to pretend to be doing something else. Because that's all they're doing, Mr. Speaker: they are simply pretending. They are taking more power unto themselves, but they have been exercising that power already. There's nothing really new about the way they're acting. They have been rewarding their friends. There have been no limits on pay increases for the people who have supported Social Credit. We've gone through this before, but it's worth reminding ourselves about a couple of examples.

[3:00]

You will remember, Mr. Speaker, the shirt-tail relation of the Premier who became a government agent overnight, in spite of the fact that he had no qualifications for the job except that he was well known to the Premier. No one ever suggested that he had any other qualifications. You'll remember the $15,000 a year increase awarded to one Mike Bailey. He was reclassified, giving him a different title, but still, $15,000 a year. Did that go to Mr. Peck? It did subsequently, but only when the member for Victoria urged that it should go. The increase to Mr. Heal? Up to $65,000 a year, I believe it was. Did that go to Mr. Peck? Only when there was public pressure for it. And what did Mr. Peck do with it? He did what he was told to do. In one instance he approved the increase and said it was in line with the program. A 50 percent increase was in line because it was a government-supported increase. The ability to pay? The taxpayers have that ability to pay. If the Premier wants it for his batman or the communications officer, or whatever he's called, then the government has the ability to pay.

Ability to pay means simply that the cabinet wants that decision to go forward as they have made it. It means nothing else. Ability to pay in any part of the public sector is something that is defined in the rooms of cabinet. The cabinet decides whether or not a school board will have the ability to increase salaries for the teachers, or to decrease the amount of money awarded to individual school districts or to education in general, to the administration. All of the money awarded to any one of the ministries is a decision made by cabinet. It's brought into the House, and eventually we may even get around to discussing some of those expenditure items. We haven't dealt yet with expenses. We haven't dealt with estimates. Ability to pay means nothing except that the cabinet has made a certain decision that extends to every person working in the public sector, including all 300,000 people spoken about by the Provincial Secretary.

The minister spoke about the success of the program, and about the way in which it's being copied in other provinces. No details. In what way has it succeeded? Mr. Speaker, since that program was first spoken about in February 1982 — it wasn't introduced until some months later — B.C. started leading the rest of the provinces. The rate at which bankruptcies were taking place in B.C. started going ahead of the national rate and every other provincial rate. It escalated in B.C. faster than in any other province. The unemployment problems in British Columbia, from that date on, started to get worse faster than in any other province, and that hasn't changed to this day. The cost-of-living increases went up faster in British Columbia than in almost any other province. That's not just because the government declined to restrain itself. You'll recall, Mr. Speaker, that in 1982 the government, while it didn't increase taxes that year to any degree, did increase user rates and fees for government services at an amount that was estimated — not by the NDPers, but by outside economists — to bring in an extra $500 million to $600 million a year. I've asked for details about that. I put questions on the order paper last year asking for details about just how much money was going to come in as a direct result of the increase in user fees and charges for government services. The minister said he would answer that question. I took him at his word and I still do. I believe he intended to answer that question and would have, but eventually the House was prorogued and we had a new election. The question is back on the order paper. When we get to dealing with the minister's estimates I'll ask him again. I'm quite sure he will one day answer that question.

In the meantime all we have, Mr. Speaker, is an estimate that the government took out of the economy of British Columbia in 1982, a year that was a bad year economically, an extra $500 million to $600 million and we ended up the year with a billion-dollar deficit, although the minister predicted that we would break even. That in itself tells us that the program failed. The government's actions failed. Before talking about restraint they estimated that it would be a break-even position. They started talking about this particular method of restraint and started implementing it, and the result of it was that instead of breaking even we ended up almost a billion dollars in the hole.

Mr. Speaker, is that what the minister meant when he talked about the success of the program? He talked about the way it's being emulated in other provinces. Well, which

[ Page 1925 ]

ones? I don't know of any other province that's following the route of the province of British Columbia in imposing the kind of restraint program that was introduced here. The minister may want to comment on that when he speaks in closing second reading. The minister said that the program of restraint that they introduced with the Premier's speech in February 1982 — a program, incidentally, that the Premier himself lacked confidence in to the extent that he didn't dare go to the electorate until April of 1983, some 15 months later; a program that he thought was so politically popular he dilly-dallied about calling the election.... Certainly he was close to doing it some three or four months after he introduced that program. There was no question that he intended to go in the fall. He was just waiting for the right moment. He finally did go in the spring. He didn't have a budget until after the election, and he did not announce the program upon which he now says his government was elected until after the election was over. The minister said the program was confirmed by the electorate. During that campaign the Premier spoke about no mass firings. He talked about the rate at which people were leaving the public sector employment but said that it was the natural course of events. People were retiring; people were going on to other employment opportunities. In government employment there was a 15 percent drop in one year, so they were well on the way to their target of 25 percent, perhaps not in the total public sector, but certainly in government. That part of the program was working. He said this during the campaign. There was no need for firings. Time alone would take care of his goal of trying to reach a reduction in public sector employment.

He said there would be no tax increases. He ridiculed the idea of tax increases. When the economy was such as it was in the spring of 1983, he said it was the wrong time to talk about tax increases. Merely talking about them was bad for the economy. Well, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that in the budget of July 7, 1983, one of the notable items was an increase in the sales tax. If there's anything that shouldn't be done at a time when the economic conditions were as they were in April, May, June and July of 1983, when, as the Premier himself said and as the minister and government spokesmen have said, there was a fragile sense of recovery in the province.... Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we were all led to believe there was. Such being the case, that was the wrong time to impose a tax increase. People should have been encouraged to believe that the tide was turning. People should have been encouraged to believe that the economy was improving. If the economy was improving, then there would be no need to impose tax increases because the improvement in the economy itself would mean that government revenues would increase and we would be able to finance the kind of government services to the level that British Columbia citizens expect and that British Columbia citizens deserve.

He promised there would be no tax increases. In the budget, a short time after the election, he did bring in tax increases. He promised and even ridiculed the idea that the government was giving any consideration at all to health user fee increases. Memos that were found to have been circulating within the Ministry of Health were described as something that might have been tossed around among the people in the lower echelons of the ministry, but certainly nothing that was ever taken seriously by the government or by the Minister of Health himself. Certainly I never heard the Premier and the Minister of Finance speak about it. They ridiculed the idea that they were giving any consideration to it. They hadn't even heard about it. Certainly they wouldn't think of doing it at a time like this.

So when the Minister of Finance stands up and tells us in the House that their program was confirmed by the electorate, he forgets that they promised no mass firings. He forgets an agreement that was negotiated between the employer and the employees, the BCGEU, in which it was promised there would be no firings. It was promised there would be negotiations, as provided for in that agreement. The government has indicated since, in this and in other legislation, that it has no intention at all of living up to that agreement. Nevertheless, the minister forgets that that promise was made during the election campaign, in addition to the written promise that was given to the B.C. Government Employees' Union that there would be no mass firings. The minister forgets the promise that there would be no tax increases. He might even have been planning those tax increases at the time the Premier was going around saying that it was the wrong time to impose tax increases and that his government, if re-elected, would not institute any tax increases. The Minister of Finance forgot — or didn't know; perhaps he wasn't listening to the Premier during the election campaign. Perhaps he didn't know that the Premier and the Minister of Health were promising the voters in the province that they had no intention and would not increase health user fees.

The government, by its own admission — by bringing in the budget that it did by bringing in the legislation that it did — proved to the people of British Columbia that it had plans before the election campaign for action that it was afraid to trust to the electorate and did not want the voters to know about.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Nonsense!

MR. STUPICH: The hon. member for Surrey is shaking her head, disagreeing with me. I challenge her to stand up, when she speaks in second reading on this bill, and say that in her riding she said that if Social Credit were re-elected, there would be mass firings to get public sector employment down to what they consider reasonable levels.

I challenge that member or any other member on the government side of the House to say that when he or she campaigned in that election campaign they promised that there would be tax increases as soon as they got re-elected. I challenge her or any other member to tell us in second reading — or at any other time — that, contrary to what the Premier and the Minister of Health were saying, if they were re-elected one of the first things they would do on taking office was to increase user fees for health services.

The member seems to have quit shaking her head, for the time being at least.

How are we going to measure whether or not we are getting full value for hard-earned tax dollars? There have been many examples, some presented in this House and others presented elsewhere, of people receiving very short notice to the effect that they were going to be fired at some day in the future, or immediately. No one was looking at their work record. No one was inquiring whether or not in that particular instance we were getting full value for our hard-earned tax dollars. The question was not put to anyone, to the best of my knowledge, whether the institution at Tranquille was not giving full value. Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether

[ Page 1926 ]

you have had the opportunity ever to go through that institution. I did. I saw the kind of people who were being served by the government employees in that institution some years ago. I can't imagine how those people are going to get anything from the government if they're going to be dumped onto the community in any other way. That institution, I believe, was serving the people of British Columbia in a way that no alternative could. There were people there who were handicapped — some mentally, some physically, some both. But they were led to believe that they had some purpose in living. They had opportunities there to develop to the fullest of their individual personal ability. That was fostered by the kind of people they had working with them: the people working in the public sector; the people who were given notice that their jobs no longer existed. Having seen the institution and spent a few hours there, going around and seeing what was being done, I was completely satisfied that in that instance we were getting full value for our hard-earned tax dollars.

I visited Colony Farm. I saw some of the people who were working with animals there, to the best of their ability as individuals. I know something of the program. I visited there several times and was very impressed with what was being done in that particular institution. Are we closing it down because the people working there were not giving us full value for the hard-earned tax dollars, or are we closing it down simply because the government believes that it can sell off one more asset and get a few more dollars for it that it can pour into some sinkhole like northeast coal? Why are we closing it down, Mr. Speaker? I'm satisfied that there was no time between May 5 and July 7 for anyone to have done any kind of an investigation to see whether or not, in that instance, we were getting any kind of value — full value or otherwise — for hard-earned tax dollars. I'm satisfied that we were.

[3:15]

There are programs to cut down on the minimum levels of social assistance. Programs for the poorest people in the community are to be cut by $50 a month. Is it giving us full value for hard-earned tax dollars to say to the poorest people in the community: "You, individually, have to give up $50 a month"? That's not giving us value for hard-earned tax dollars. We were getting far more value for our tax dollars by keeping it going to people like that rather than by giving it to a cabinet minister to spend in VIP lounges. That was much greater value for hard-earned tax dollars, in my estimation and, I hope, Mr. Speaker, your estimation, and I hope that before my colleagues and the people on the government side of the House are finished the government itself will realize that there are better ways of spending hard-earned tax dollars than to start by saying that the poorest people in the community have to start doing without to a greater extent than they have been so far.

They're cutting back on the lowest-income people and saying to them that they have to give up their renter's tax credit as a way of getting more value out of our hard-earned tax dollars. The renter's tax credit and the low-income tax credit involve a total amount of some $91 million, according to the budget. Mr. Speaker, that $91 million would have been turned over and over and over again if it were paid out to the poorest people in the community. That would be giving us better value for our hard-earned tax dollars than to simply cut back on that one item of expenditure so that more money might be available for some of the cabinet programs, and they'd have to come back again to financing northeast coal — to hurry up and get that coal project when we know that the prospects for marketing the coal get worse day by day.

Mr. Speaker, the government hasn't tried to justify the firings of any of the people that they have given notice to or have talked about giving notice to so far. They haven't tried to justify, in any instance, that the taxpayer is not getting value for tax dollars; they've simply cut programs as a way of revenge. They've cut programs that were instituted by the NDP administration not because they weren't good programs but because they're something that the Social Credit administration sees no need for in today's conditions.

If people are hungry, they don't need human rights — that would seem to be the government's attitude. So they're going to save tax dollars by doing away with the human rights program. That's no way of getting full value for our human rights program.

What kind of incentive do they give? The minister talked about incentive and production.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm on Bill.... Mr. Member, do you know what bill we're on right now?

Mr. Speaker, we really shouldn't be discussing this bill today. We should be waiting until we see the estimates and discuss with ministers exactly how they intend to spend the tax dollars they're going to have. Until we've done that we have no way of knowing whether the implementation of Bill 11 is going to be good or bad. All we have to date are the bad results. All we know so far is that the government's restraint program has resulted in B.C. being in worse shape and getting progressively worse compared to other provinces and the country as a whole. In almost every way in which progress, or lack of it, might be measured, the program has been a failure. There can be no question about that.

Speaking in support of the program, the minister said that Commissioner Peck's office has had 966 plans submitted to it and that 895 of these are found to have been within the guidelines. Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the other 71 weren't. If 895 of them were within the guidelines, why do we need Peck's office? If we're talking about restraint, why not get rid of that institution, at $400 a day for one person? Eight hundred and ninety-five were found to be within the guidelines, including the 50 percent increase to Mr. Heal. Mr. Speaker, if we needed any question answered about the credibility of that office, when Peck's office has said that a 50 percent increase to one person is within the guidelines, whereas a 5 percent reduction to someone else is also within the guidelines, can there be anything more obvious than that the guidelines, item by item, are set not by Mr. Peck's office but by the cabinet? We don't need the program if 895 of the plans were within the government's guidelines without the review of Mr. Peck. Why weren't the others, I wonder? They were outside of the guidelines, and therefore they had to be rolled back. What were they doing? They referred them back to the people who had produced them in the first place and said: "Take another look at it. We don't like it." It certainly postponed the process, but to what end? I wonder how much money we really have saved as a result of Mr. Peck's office, and how much it has cost? That's the question I'd like to put to the Minister of Finance, and I will when we get to estimates.

I tried to make notes as the minister was speaking. Perhaps they seem disjointed, but I took them down as he was speaking. He emphasized this: the paramount consideration

[ Page 1927 ]

of the legislation before us now is ability to pay. Taxpayers have a limited ability; I grant you that. This government has taxed to the limit the ability of taxpayers to pay. They taxed it this year by increasing the sales tax and the rate of taxation on rural land. They taxed it this year by applying the tax to meals and to long-distance calls. They taxed it by increasing the user rates for health fees. They taxed it last year by increasing user rates and service fees, as I said, by an amount calculated to raise some $500 million or 600 million. So they certainly seem to have been doing everything they could to go as far as they could to see just how far taxpayers would go. They've done that. But they haven't worried about ability to pay when it comes to looking after their own comforts.

I have to come back again to the question during question period about the entertainment of people in the VIP box. I'm told it cost $60,000 for the box alone; that has nothing to do with the entertainment costs in addition to that. The same taxpayers who are saying to the poorest people in the community, "You're not going to be able to get that $50 a month any more," are paying that. The same taxpayers who are saying to people on social assistance, as the minister has said, that there will be no increase — and I'm not sure whether that's for a year or for an indefinite time as well.... Those are the same taxpayers who are paying both bills. The same taxpayers who have said to the low-income people and the renters: "You're not going to get your income tax credit any more. As taxpayers you can't afford it. You can afford what we, the cabinet, want to do. Any largess we want to grant to ourselves or our friends, you can afford. But we, the cabinet, tell you that you can't afford to look after the needs of the poorest people in the community. You can afford only to continue the grandiose projects we have and to keep the programs going that we like. You can't afford to continue to look after the poorest people in the community...."

"Fundamental consideration for increases must be greater productivity." How do you measure that greater productivity? What opportunities are there for measuring that greater productivity'? I have talked about a few instances, and I'm sure many of my colleagues will come up with many other examples where people are being fired without any question at all as to whether they have been individually productive, whether their program is productive or whether what the government is doing in total is productive.... I think we have some measure of that in the outcry from the community about the government's plans to make certain cutbacks.

What encouragement is there for someone working in the public service to increase his or her productivity if he knows that at any time the government may decide that the taxpayers as a whole can't afford to continue that service? Is that going to encourage productivity? No warning; all of a sudden there's no job. It would seem to me that it would increase the desire of people to find employment elsewhere, outside of B.C., rather than to be more productive at the job. It seems to me that rather than being more productive, they will be trying in any way they can to be friends with the people who might keep them in their job until they can find another. They won't be as concerned about the quality of the work they're doing as they will about whether or not they're going to be working at the job tomorrow, the next day and as long as they need it to sustain their families.

The minister talked about employees in the public sector being more sheltered, so therefore they should accept a lower increase. There's a lot of fiction about that. In another debate, I quoted from an American business publication to show that there's less job security on the North American continent than in any other western nation. As I say, that came from an American business magazine. So we don't have job security on the outside world, that's true. But how much do we really have in the public sector?

I think I spoke in an earlier debate about a young fellow I met who has been working for the government for nine years and is still considered to be a casual. I'm not sure what the term is. It's not "casual"; it's "ancillary employee." There's absolutely no job security at all. He could be told tomorrow that his job is at an end, even without this program. In this case he's still working and, so far as he knows, is still working. He has no job security, and he's been working for the government for nine years. He told me of others who had been there much longer than that. Even for the ones who do have — or are supposed to have — some sort of job security.... Look at the agreement reached between the BCGEU and the government. The government could at any time in negotiation with the employees arrive at a conclusion that a certain job was no longer going to be done and could then, in negotiation, in proper communication between the two groups, decide on an orderly layoff without the shock treatment of the legislation before us now; without the kind of bill we have before us today. That decision could be made at any time by negotiation, without anybody getting upset, without the need for the kind of demonstrations that we've had in the province and without the need for the kind of demonstrations that cannot do anything less than have a bad effect upon the economy and upon the appreciation of what's happening in B.C. In other jurisdictions. After all, we can't have a demonstration of 20,000 people in Victoria and 40,000 in Vancouver and hope to keep it quiet. The rest of the world knows what's happening, and the rest of the world knows that you can't get that many people together for a demonstration unless there's something seriously wrong in the community.

It's all the result of the attitude of the government as reflected in Bill 11 before us today. That's what people are reacting against: job security. The opportunities are there in the agreement; the opportunities have always been there for there to be proper layoffs if circumstances warranted, proper negotiation so that there would not be the kind of response that we've had from the community.

The minister spoke again, and I have to repeat it — he repeated it, so I'm following the notes I made of his speech.... One of the fundamentals — the first fundamental — is that the purpose of this legislation is to recognize the taxpayers' ability to pay. It's not so much that I want to go on repeating it, but the minister repeated it. I have to say that it's complete fiction, and he knows it. He knows that he and the cabinet make the....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Are you designated?

MR. STUPICH: That's what I'm trying to decide right now.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do you want me to close?

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Finance is asking whether or not we would like him to close. We would, yes. Not immediately, but I'll keep going for a while.

[ Page 1928 ]

Coming back to the question of the ability to pay, the minister kept referring to this as the fundamental.... It was the first one he spoke of in each case, and he spoke of it as the fundamental every time he went over and over the points he made with respect to this legislation. If we're talking about a Crown corporation such as B.C. Hydro, B.C. Hydro is controlled by directors appointed by cabinet, and cabinet ministers sit on that directorate. The ability of B.C. Hydro to meet wage demands or any kind of demands from employees doesn't depend upon the ability to pay. It depends upon the cabinet's appreciation of the ability to pay. Cabinet's decisions as to just how much the increases should be, if any, or whether there should be a rollback or a cut in service.

[3:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There are people who are fond of saying that there are far too many people working in the public sector. There are some who will say that there are far too many working for B.C. Hydro. That may be true in some instances. Mr. Speaker, you live in a part of the province where from time to time you experience the kind of winters that result in power curtailments. As a matter of fact, that happens all over the province. In my own constitutuency of Nanaimo, I know the extent to which staff working for Hydro have already been curtailed. I know that the number of people who are available to meet emergencies has been cut down seriously.

Nanaimo is a fairly small constituency compared to some in the province, and yet there are parts of the Nanaimo constituency where in the past, before we were subjected to the kind of abuses that are in the government's program announced this year, power has been off for a substantial number of people for several days. Gabriola Island, for example, has had power outages several days long. There are a couple of thousand people living there.

There are things much more serious than that. But when that power is cut off, I like to know there is someone at B.C. Hydro ready to go to work regardless of what the weather conditions are, regardless of their personal needs and comforts, regardless of whether they're leaving their Christmas dinners — because that's the time of year when these storms happen. I'd like to know that there are people there ready to go to work, capable of going to work and able to do the kind of work necessary to have that service resumed as quickly as possible. That's the kind of expectation we have in British Columbia, and we do have the ability to pay to meet emergencies like that.

There may be some opportunities for cutting back in head office. People are often fond of looking at head office and saying that there are too many people running around there, because they're so visible. I just don't know whether that's true or not. I do know that when it comes to working out in the other parts of the province — when it comes to working in other communities — there should be no cutbacks in the size of those crews who are ready to meet emergencies. That's just one example — B.C. Hydro itself. As I say, when the minister talks about ability to pay, he knows that the decision as to whether or not B.C. Hydro has the ability to pay is a decision of cabinet — cabinet-appointed directors or cabinet directly. For him to say that Mr. Peck has no right to look into the question of whether or not B.C. Hydro has the ability to pay is right. It doesn't make any difference, because the decision about the ability to pay with respect with B.C. Hydro is made by cabinet.

B.C. Rail. Who makes the decisions there? B.C. Rail is a Crown corporation that is subsidized annually by the taxpayers of British Columbia. No question is put to the taxpayers as to whether or not they can afford the $70 million payment for interest that was made last year so that railroad could keep on going. I'm not suggesting for one moment that we would stop that railroad. Indeed, we kept it going while we were in office. We kept the Dease Lake extension going while we were in office. That was stopped by the present administration. The present administration threatened to cut off Fort Nelson, but backed down because of the protests. Ability to pay? If B.C. Rail depended upon its own ability to pay, everyone working for B.C. Rail would be laid off. It's cabinet that makes the decision. Cabinet makes the decision that we must have that rail service in British Columbia. I agree with that decision. It's cabinet that decides how much money B.C. Rail will have, apart from its operating revenues — how much of a subsidy will be paid, how much they'll be allowed to go in debt. It's cabinet that borrows the money that keeps B.C. Rail going. It's cabinet that makes the decisions about what expansions there shall be in the B.C. Rail service. It's cabinet that makes the decision as to just how much money should be available to meet operating expenses, including salaries and wages. The directors are appointed by cabinet. For the Minister of Finance to say that the fundamental question in the event that B.C. Rail employees start negotiating — in the event that there is any negotiating at all, meaningful or otherwise.... For him to say that the decision about whether or not B.C. Rail employees will get an increase depends upon the ability of B.C. Rail to pay is simply rubbish. The ability to pay is a determination that is made by the Minister of Finance with his colleagues. It's not made by anyone else.

There's a very essential service in this province that is not a Crown corporation. However, as an Islander, I suppose I would look on the B.C. Ferry Corporation as providing a more essential service, but economically perhaps that's not the case. But the B.C. Ferries service really is an essential service. The mainland needs it. They need to have that communication with Vancouver Island. There are some Islanders who would like to have some communication with the mainland as well. It's much more important for mainlanders to be able to get to the Island. But what about the ability to pay? Who appoints the Crown corporation directors? Who appoints the manager? Who makes the real decisions as to whether or not B.C. Ferry Corporation will be able to pay? Who made the decision that three B.C. ferries should be sold in 1976 in order to finance some other government spending program? The government made that decision. Cabinet made the decision. It was supported in the House; they had a majority. The government, cabinet-inspired, made the decision to sell three new B.C. ferries. If that kind of decision is made by cabinet, can the minister really stand up and tell us that when it comes to paying a salary to someone working in the kitchen on the B.C. Ferries, that is going to decided by someone else — going to be decided by the people who are paying the fares, the taxpayers? What garbage! B.C. Ferry Corporation's ability to pay is a decision that is made by the Minister of Finance and his cabinet colleagues and nobody else.

People working in this building. Who's going to decide whether or not the government has the ability to pay them? Does the minister pretend that the taxpayers are going to have a vote on that? That whether or not the people working in the

[ Page 1929 ]

building on 24-hour shifts — not individually 24 hours at one time — are going to be paid will be put to the taxpayers? That if the amount of sales tax revenue coming in from the sales tax recently applied to meals is up, then the people working in the buildings are going to get paid, and if it's down, they're not? If the minister seriously thought that ability to pay is something that we should be considering in detail, then the minister should be coming before us with his estimates and with the estimates of every other minister and answering our questions, leading a discussion, showing us how they intend to spend the money that is being voted for them. Then, perhaps, we would have some better idea as to whether any particular ministry had the ability to pay or didn't have the ability to pay. Once we've voted the money, then we have some measure of that ministry's ability to pay. Until we can look at their spending programs, we have no measure at all. The only one that has any measure is cabinet. The Minister of Finance and his cabinet colleagues are the only ones who have any measure at all as to whether or not anyone working directly in the government service is going to have his salary or his promotion or anything else influenced by the ability of taxpayers to pay.

The minister mentioned again, among his "fundamentals," the indefinite extension. I have to say again that all he is saying, when he tells us that the program is going to be continued indefinitely, is that so far it has failed, and it's going to be necessary for us to keep it going indefinitely. It's not working; it's not improving the economy in the province of British Columbia; and surely, Mr. Speaker, that was the name of the game.

When the Premier introduced this program in February of 1982, he said that it was necessary for the economic survival of British Columbia, or at least for economic improvement. I don't think he raised the question of survival or non-survival. But he did say that for the sake of economic improvement in the province it was necessary to impose these controls for a relatively short period, and that because of the effect of these controls, it would soon be possible to remove the restrictions of the compensation stabilization program.

There was no indication then that we would come to the day when we would not only be limited to the increases he suggested then.... And you remember, Mr. Speaker, that we were talking about increases as high as 12 percent. That was in February of 1982. Things were bad then, so we had to make sure that in no situation would there be any increase to any public sector employee of more than 12 percent. Well, we now come to the point where some people may experience a decrease of as much as 5 percent. Is there any way of describing the program other than to say that it must be a failure if some 17 months after the program has been talked about and later instituted, things are so bad that, rather than talk about an increase of as much as 12 percent, we're saying that in some instances there must be a decrease of as much as 5 percent?

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a guest in the gallery today, Mr. Stan Rogers. Mr. Rogers is an owner of the Rogers flour mill in Armstrong. I might say that it's the only flour mill in the province of British Columbia, and I can assure you that Mr. Rogers certainly knows a lot about the subject at hand today — the ability to pay. Would you please make Mr. Rogers welcome.

MR. STUPICH: The government recognizes that its program is failing in other ways. One of the ways in which they've recognized the failure of their program is by admitting that the public really doesn't understand what they're trying to achieve, by admitting that it's necessary for a cabinet minister to travel around the province trying to explain to people why they are treating the poorest people in our community in the way they are and why it is necessary to cut back on income tax credits and social assistance payments, and increase health user fees. So they're setting out on a program to sell restraint programs.

I'm looking now at a photocopy of a story from the Province, dated Sunday, August 21: "Victoria to 'Sell' Restraint Plans." It reminds me of another example of restraint, Mr. Speaker. Did anyone ask the taxpayers of British Columbia whether they had the ability to pay for the million-dollar plus campaign to advertise the weatherman in the spring of this year, for several months before the election was called? Where did ability to pay come into that question? Who made the decision as to whether or not the taxpayers had the ability to pay for that snow job? That's what it was: a program to try to tell everyone in the province how great things were in B.C. In spite of everything they could see going on around them, in spite of the increases in bankruptcies, the cost of living and unemployment. We were all told: "Isn't it great to be living in B.C." And apparently the electorate bought it. The government didn't tell the electorate what it planned to do the moment the election was over, and now that the election is over and they have revealed their program — given us the details — they recognize that the public they spoke to before the election campaign, from whom they withheld all these plans, doesn't really understand why the government finds it necessary to act in the way that it is today. So the cabinet is going out to explain. Cabinet ministers and MLAs will soon be sweeping through B.C. preaching the gospel of restraint.

Mr. Speaker, everyone recognizes the political need for a restraint program right now. Is there any economic justification for cutting back on the poorest people in the community in the name of restraint? If you're going to cut back, how about some of the higher echelons? How about making sure that some of the people who are not paying income tax on large salaries, or are paying the very minimum, should be contributing more? Look at the bank profits these days. We used to be told that the banks make more profit when interest rates are going up because they've got fairly long-term investments at lower interest rates and are able to lend it out on higher...and it's only when interest rates are going up that they maximize their profits. Well, interest rates have remained fairly steady in the past year, Mr. Speaker — and perhaps you've seen the articles that I have about the very large increases in bank profits. What about getting some more money from people like that instead of taking it out of the poorest people in the community?

[3:45]

"Premier Bill Bennett told the Province that he will play a pivotal role in getting his government's message out. That includes a 'good possibility' of a provincewide television speech, he said in his first interview here" — in Victoria — "since the budget was brought down." There's something in

[ Page 1930 ]

that itself, Mr. Speaker. The budget came down on July 7, and the Premier gave the press the first opportunity to ask him questions about it on August 21. He couldn't have been terribly interested in the budget that came down or in his own program, or perhaps he hoped that it would get through very quickly before anybody noticed what was happening.

"He admitted his government has done a poor job in selling the package." Well, it's a pretty hard package to sell, isn't it? It's a package that doesn't stand up to any examination when you look at the figures — and I feel some freedom in talking about this, since the government has not given us any opportunity to discuss estimates. It predicts a deficit of $1.6 billion, and in my opinion and in the opinion of others from outside this House who have looked at it, the government is seriously overstating the amount of the deficit. That makes it very hard to sell the program.

When it's apparent to everyone who looks at it — that is, everyone who does not wear the blue or whatever colour of glasses the Social Crediters wear when they look at the budget — that the government has thoroughly underestimated its revenue and overestimated its expenditures, and when it would appear the restraint program is going to have no influence on government expenditures other than to have them increase at just about double or triple the rate of inflation, where's the restraint? That's why I say that if we had some opportunity to question the ministers during the process of estimates, we would know just how this restraint program is working and how it's being applied in each ministry. We're not having that opportunity. So we're dealing with Bill 11 today in somewhat of a vacuum, not really understanding what the government has in mind — not really having had an opportunity to question each cabinet minister about the restraint within his or her ministry.

In any case, the government is going to try to sell a program that up to now, it believes, has not been well sold. "'Yes, we got caught on style,' he said. 'It's not because we're clumsy, but because we were anxious to get on with the job.'" Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker, anxious that the electorate not find out about it before May 5 and anxious to get on with it as soon as they were safely re-elected; clumsy because they felt that if they brought everything in on the one day — the budget and 26 pieces of legislation — and dumped all of it on the public at once, it would go through before anyone really had an opportunity to find out what it was doing to them. Well, Mr. Speaker, it didn't work. I wouldn't accuse them of clumsiness, because certainly during the pre-election campaign that went on for several months — a campaign that was financed by these taxpayers, who never had an opportunity to say whether or not they had the ability for this grand program — they didn't show any clumsiness. I think it's just a program that can't be sold on the face of the evidence that we have seen so far.

"The government will also launch a major advertising campaign on television, radio and in print, promoting its package." Where's the approval for that program and what are the details of it? Many people have tried to find out. Bill 11 talks about restraint, and we're all told about the need for restraint. The government is going to embark on a massive advertising program to tell us the details of that restraint — why it's necessary and how it's going to work. Where's the money going to come from? Are they really going to ask the voters: "Do you have the ability to pay for this program?" Are they going to ask them: "Do you really want to pay for a program to tell you what we're doing to you?" That question won't be put to the taxpayers and they won't be asked: "Do you have the ability to pay?" They're told, collectively, that they don't have the ability to pay an extra $50 to the poorest people in the community; the government is making that decision for them. And when they say that they have a mandate to do that, they certainly never said during the election campaign that that was going to be one of their first acts. That was never threatened or promised or mentioned.

Going on with this quotation: "'I think there's a legitimate reason to sell government programs in a matter as important as this.'" What reason could there be for telling people that there isn't enough money in the budget to continue programs such as the Human Rights Commission? If it's something that has to be done in the name of restraint and if it's felt that human rights are no longer important enough to pay for, even at the cost of — and I believe it was the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) who said three postage stamps per day per capita would cover the complete cost of the program.... If it's necessary to cut back that far, how much money is going to be spent advertising the need for that cutback? Before that program is embarked upon, we should see the estimates and have some opportunity to discuss with the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), or whatever minister is going to have charge of that program, how much is going to be spent on it, whether or not it is a legitimate expense, and whether or not the taxpayers have the ability — and willingness — to pay for it.

"And, he added, he doesn't think he'll be criticized for spending public funds on the ads." Well, he seems to have the idea that whatever he does or his cabinet ministers do when they're entertaining themselves and others is okay. The taxpayers have lots of money for that. There's no question about their ability to pay for such programs. The question about ability to pay only comes up when we're looking after....

I'm trying to catch him; that's why I keep hesitating. When I stop for a moment, then you speak, and then I'll hear it, and then I can perhaps comment. Mr. Speaker, this is going on between me and the hon. member from somewhere or other who wants to speak from his seat.

All of the government members seems to like.... It appears to me as though the orders have come down that you are not to take up the time of the debate; you are not to lengthen the sitting in any way. Any time you want to speak, you do it on a point of order or you do it from your seat, and then it's okay. But don't dare get up and speak on the debate itself. Don't dare stand up and say that you believe in what is happening, because we are going to do that by spending a lot of money advertising. The Premier has said: "We are going to go out into the community, and we're going to spend money advertising and telling people what a great job we're doing." So there is no need to waste your time in the House.

Don't take up time in the session talking about the program. Let's wait until the cabinet ministers travel the province. They'll tell the people out there what we're doing and why we're doing it. They won't be faced with any embarrassing questions such as might be asked by the opposition in the House. Don't speak in the House, because what you say in the House might be responded to by someone who knows something about it. It is safe to go out into the community where you're speaking to people. It is safe to go out into the community on an advertising program where there is no opportunity for anyone to respond. So save your comments till you get out of here. Leave it to the cabinet ministers if we are going to talk about something like Bill 11

[ Page 1931 ]

and the need to exercise restraint in the way that is suggested to us in Bill 11.

"Bennett said that despite opposition his vision will continue to unfold." I have to laugh when I saw that. I wonder what his vision is. Is his vision of B.C. a province where all decisions will be made in the cabinet room? Bill 11 takes all decisions about payment of public sector employees into the cabinet room, and other legislation before us went in the same direction. Is that his vision of the way the country should work? Is that his vision of the way B.C. should work — that all decisions about public sector working conditions and remuneration, benefit plans, and all of that should be made not by the boards of directors of the various corporations but rather by cabinet? Is his vision of British Columbia a place in which the school boards will no longer have any real authority but the decisions will be made, as we are told in Bill 11, by cabinet? Not directly sometimes; they'll let Peck be the mouthpiece, but cabinet will make decisions. Is that his vision of British Columbia?

Mr. Speaker, it's not a vision that I like to consider. It is not a vision, I'm sure, that you would like to consider. It is a vision, if it exists, in the mind of one person only. "It started a year ago February, and in about a year from now, he promised, it will culminate with government members flying around the world selling B.C. as a lean machine in control of public spending and taxes." We've seen some of that already. Fortunately for all of us the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is flying around the world now telling somebody something about us. It is a much better House without him, so I'm pleased that that one particular minister is flying around the world. But I wonder what he is saying. We've heard nothing about it, and perhaps we are just as far ahead not having heard anything about it.

How lean a machine are we? Inflation is expected to be in the neighbourhood of 6 percent this year. Government expenditures, according to the estimates, are going to go up by 12 percent; 16 percent if you look at the estimates that were presented in the House, but 12 percent if you look at the revised estimates. That's a lean machine? I don't know of another government that has increased its spending estimates in 1983-84 over 1982-83 by as much as 16 percent. Yet the ministers are going to go all around the world telling everybody what a lean machine we're running here in B.C.

MR. HOWARD: It's a mean machine.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, it's a mean machine. I thank the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). It's not lean, but it is indeed a mean machine. That's the vision that the Premier has of British Columbia — that it shall be a mean machine running the province, rather than a lean one.

"In control of public spending and taxes" — certainly they're in control of public spending. They make the decisions about attending VIP lounges at the B.C. Place stadium; they make the decisions about spending money on northeast coal, they make the decisions about spending more money on B.C. Rail. They do make all those decisions. Cabinet makes them. Taxes — they make those decisions. Cabinet made the decision to increase the sales tax and to increase its application in other areas. Cabinet makes those decisions. Cabinet made the decision to increase the health user fees. A lean machine? It's a mean machine, Mr. Speaker.

"That in turn will lure industry, jobs and prosperity from places too weak to stop the growth of government.... " Well, Mr. Speaker, I spent a lot of time being interviewed by the publisher of one of the papers in my riding. One of the concerns he had was that if the NDP were elected as the government in the province of British Columbia, industry that was considering establishing in B.C. would be frightened away and wouldn't come in. I've had an opportunity to talk to him a bit since then, and he has made up a list of his own of industry that was talking about coming into the province before the election and has since decided not to come. He's also aware that since the budget and the package of 26 pieces of legislation came down, our credit rating has been downgraded in New York. It was only when people who the cabinet are going to be flying around to talk to saw what was really happening in B.C. that our credit rating was downgraded. And that's supposed to lure industry.

The international appreciation of what's happening in B.C. is proof enough of what's happening in B.C. and is proof in itself that the program isn't working. There's no new industry coming to the province; indeed, industry is still leaving the province. We're not getting new jobs. Unemployment is still increasing. If we had prosperity, we wouldn't be discussing the legislation that we are today. There would be no need for cabinet to take complete control of all working conditions in the public sector. There would be no need for legislation stating that it's going to be necessary for the government to maintain this control indefinitely. If the program were working, we could have a cutoff date, an earlier date than was originally settled upon. Instead of that we find it necessary to say that this program will go on indefinitely.

"Bennett said he's getting strong support from the 'silent majority,' and the issue of cutbacks in the public service 'never became a problem until people decided to make it a political problem.'" Mr. Speaker, it's the government that made it a political problem. The government broke its promises. I don't know how often I have to say that to try to get through to some of the members on the back bench. The government did indeed break its promises, and I challenge any one of them to stand up and say otherwise.

When the Premier himself intervened, interfered, got involved in the discussions between the BCGEU and the employers' representatives, and made certain promises to the BCGEU representatives, they took those promises back to their members and got support for them. That's what happened. The Premier interfered and made promises that he apparently never had any intention of keeping. He made promises during the election campaign that there would be no mass firings, and broke those promises as well. He has strong support from the silent majority — like the 40,000 who got together in Vancouver and the 25,000 who came to Victoria to protest. The silent majority? Where is that silent majority, Mr. Speaker? We've seen no evidence of them saying: "Yes, we like what you're doing." We've seen lots of evidence, not just from large numbers of people here in the province, but from letters that have been written — letters that the Premier, in some cases, hasn't bothered responding to; other letters and telegrams that we've received. There is a great deal of evidence to the effect that the majority do not support the way in which restraint is being implemented in the province of British Columbia.

[4:00]

"Bennett called harsh words such as 'jackboot' and 'Hitler-like' from organized labour 'highly offensive to me. I take a lot of personal insult from those paid ads by the B.C. Federation of Labour'" Well, there are a lot of people who

[ Page 1932 ]

took offence at paid ads prior to the election campaign. I kept hearing about those ads every time I spoke. I travelled around different parts of the province and on every occasion people resented the fact that their hard-earned tax dollars were being used to finance the weather man in election ads. The Premier takes offence and I take offence, Mr. Speaker. Many people in the community take offence at many of the actions of this government. If the government does follow its plans to start another advertising campaign to tell the people of the province what a great job they're doing, when all the evidence is to the contrary, then I think people are going to take offence again, and with good reason.

"Bennett said the government has hired outside consultants to help smooth out the tough job of layoffs, and said 'it's possible' the most controversial of the government's new legislation will be changed." I suppose we have to wait for that. It's possible. There may be some changes. A couple of words were removed from one bill that made no difference to the legislation. The effect of it will be just as bad as it was before those words were removed. What else can we look forward to? What other changes? We don't know. We're really starting at the back end of things. Before we start talking about things like this, about the effects of these restraint programs, and before we get into the details, we should really be looking at the estimated expenditures. "That will depend on the type of consultation the government gets from outside groups. 'We're working on amendments ourselves on some of the bills ourselves,' he said. He wouldn't disclose specifics." That's something like the regulations that were promised us in the middle of August. We're now past the middle of September.

In the Times-Colonist of Saturday, August 20, the headline was: "Restraint Part of Problem, not Solution." The legislation before us now is part of the problem in British Columbia. It's no solution. By being provocative, it's part of the problem. By threatening to take away all prospects of any kind of negotiation, it's part of the problem. By saying that things are so bad that it's going to continue indefinitely is adding to the problem. By saying that compensation in the public sector for some 300,000 people, less the 25 percent who are going to be laid off, which brings it down to 237,500.... Saying to all of those people that this is what's going to happen to them is creating a problem; it is creating a lack of confidence that is, indeed, a part of the problem.

"Incomes are being squeezed and there are 'worrisome' signs that could choke off economic recovery, a Statistics Canada report to be released next week warns." Incomes in B.C. are indeed being restrained, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately it is the lowest-paid people who are being restrained the most. Those are the ones who would spend the money in their communities if they were being paid. I can appreciate the need for private employers to exercise that kind of restraint, but government has a responsibility and an opportunity to look after the poorer people in its employ and the poorer people that it is serving.

To restrain the incomes of people such as that is working contrary to the interests of the total community, because by paying money to people on social assistance, you improve economic conditions in the province. You get the money circulating; you increase confidence. Above all, Mr. Speaker — and the Premier has said this on occasion.... That's why he is going to embark on his massive education program — advertising campaign — because it is necessary to make people think that things are better. Giving money to the poorest people in the community who are going to spend it living in their communities would work toward greater economic opportunities in every one of those communities. That would be the way to go if the Premier wanted to establish a solution. The kind of restraint he is imposing is part of the problem, not of the solution.

This article goes on: "Federal and provincial restraint programs appear to be part of the problem and not part of the solution. Little or no growth in wages and salaries and continuing high unemployment were depressing consumer spending, Philip Cross, chief of Statistics Canada's current economic analysis section, said Friday." It is bound to. After all, if we are going to increase economic opportunities in our province or in our country, we have to get the wheels going. People aren't going to be able to buy unless they have the money to buy. People aren't going to spend even if they have the money, unless they know there is another dollar coming in. So when you threaten 300,000 public sector employees with mass layoffs, you are saying to all 300,000 of them: "You, individually, may be out of a job tomorrow. So whatever you do, don't spend any money. If you are getting any, hang onto it. Save it. Hoard it, because tomorrow you may be out of work." What does that do to retail spending in our province?

I have a friend who is an automobile salesman, and he works at it on and off, depending upon economic conditions. Up until July 7 he was working and doing quite well. He kept his job for a week after July 7, and then gave it up because nobody was buying automobiles after that date. I don't know what's happened since.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sales are going up.

MR. STUPICH: The member over there says sales are going up. He'll have an opportunity to stand up.... No, I'm sorry, not to stand up. He's been told he can't stand, but he can say from his seat later on what evidence he has for sales going up. I'm simply reporting one example in my own community where a top salesman, who was doing quite well until July 7, gave up his job shortly afterward because there just were no more sales after the sales tax increase was implemented. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that it wasn't just a one-point increase with respect to automobiles. It depended on the size of the automobile. In some instances it was substantially more than a one-point increase. So that is one example. The member says sales have gone up since. Well, I would like to see some figures on that. I have yet to see them.

"'It's all adding up,' said Cross. Disposable incomes were not rising to match economic growth in other areas and that would definitely hurt the durability of the recovery. There were already signs that consumer spending slowed in the second quarter compared to the first quarter of this year and the final quarter of last year, Cross said." I would like to see some figures for B.C. I would think that those figures would show an even worse situation in the province of British Columbia than in any other province as a direct result of the July 7 budget, the 26 pieces of legislation and bills such as Bill 11, the Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, which promises to make things worse for 300,000 people, rather than to make them better for anyone.

[ Page 1933 ]

"Economists agreed that greater consumer spending was essential to a strong recovery." We can't have greater consumer spending if we say to the B.C. Government Employees' Union: "Many of you are going to be laid off, and the ones who are currently working may experience a decrease in salary." If we say to the people receiving social assistance: "Some of you are going to experience a decrease of $50 a month, others can look forward to no increase...." If we are saying to low-income people, "Your income tax credits are gone," you don't get greater consumer spending, because in saying things like that you are influencing not only the people directly involved but everybody with whom they come in contact. So it is bound to have a tremendously bad effect upon consumer spending, and as this author says: "Economists agreed that greater consumer spending was essential to a strong recovery." The government, in its budget and 26 attendant pieces of legislation, couldn't have done anything worse than what it did if it had in mind true recovery in the province of British Columbia.

Going on with this article, the economists said that such consumer spending accounted for two-thirds of the country's gross national product. Two-thirds of the gross national product is dependent upon consumer spending, so the government of British Columbia says: "We are going to cut that out." The other one-third may carry on but we are going to make sure that two-thirds of the country's gross national product is adversely affected by making sure that some 300,000 people know they are going to get hit. Not just the 300,000, who are public sector employees; a lot of other people who have been receiving some help from government are also going to be affected.

"Cross said there was no reason to expect a strong boost in consumer spending unless there were significant increases in wages or employment, and that didn't appear to be in the cards." Of course, we know there is to be no increase in B.C. We know that in some cases there will be a decrease of 5 percent, and we know that in all cases the decisions for those 300,000 people are going to be centralized, made in cabinet. "Labour income as a whole grew by only 3 percent between April 1982 and April 1983, while during the same period inflation was twice that rate, 6.6 percent." At this point we don't know what it is going to be in 1983-84. We know there is still some inflation, but we have no idea just how much that will be; yet we have said to so many people in our community that they will have to get by on less. We haven't told them how they are going to get by on less. We haven't done anything at all to control inflation; we have simply said: "It is up to you, the people whom we can control, the poorest people, to make our program work."

"That meant consumers had even less money to spend last April than in the depths of the recession last year. In part, that was due to the fact that increases in earnings slowed to a virtual standstill, encouraged by federal and provincial wage restraint pressures and programs."

Other pressures and programs were announced by other governments and by the federal government, but nowhere in Canada were they the kind of programs announced here in the province of British Columbia; certainly nothing to compare with the July 7, 1983, budget and the attendant 26 pieces of legislation.

"And Finance Minister Marc Lalonde has recently stepped up Ottawa's restraint program, warning that unacceptable wage increases will lead to renewed inflation and an end to economic recovery.

"Cross said there had been only very weak increases in employment."

Certainly none at all in B.C.

MS. SANFORD: On a point of order, I am quite concerned that while the member for Nanaimo is making such excellent points, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has been absent for some period of time during this member's debate. I wonder if we could have a recess until the minister can be found. There is no one else on the cabinet benches to take any notes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, hon. member. I also note that the Minister of Finance is in the chamber.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, here he comes.

MR. STUPICH: I can appreciate that the Minister of Finance does have some continuing responsibilities that are bound to take him out of the chamber from time to time. However, he still has a job other than that of MLA — which is to represent this ministry in the House.

I did say earlier, during the course of my remarks, that if restraint has to be exercised, there are others in the community who could better afford to do so than the ones being hit by legislation such as Bill 11. There was an article in the Vancouver Sun, August 19, headed: "Rich Should Pay the Restraint Tab, Bishop Suggests." I talked earlier about the banks, but there are others. "The rich and powerful should pay for the Social Credit government's program, not the poor and weak, says Bishop Remi de Roo." Of course, the weak are relatively defenceless, so it is easy to pick on them. The poor are relatively defenceless, so it is easy to pick on them. The rich have a bit more influence. You will remember the talk during the election campaign about the committee.... Was it $30,000 a year they gave to the Social Credit Party so they would have the ear of the Premier? Some kind of a club like that. They have influence, Mr. Speaker; we can't pick on them. The people on social assistance don't have that kind of influence, so they can be picked upon.

[4:15]

"The Roman Catholic bishop of Victoria was responding to accusations by Premier Bill Bennett that he criticized the government's restraint program because he distrusts the private sector and disagrees with the concept of profits.

"Nobody argues with the need for restraint, de Roo said in an interview Thursday, but critics of his recent remarks are missing his point: who should pay for the program.

"De Roo is chairman of a commission of the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops, which released a controversial statement last December calling on the federal government to recognize its moral obligations when setting economic policy."

I don't know why this article calls it a controversial statement. What can be controversial about that? Surely we should all recognize the responsibility of every level of government to recognize that it has moral obligations when

[ Page 1934 ]

setting economic policy. The government, in bringing in legislation such as Bill 11, in saying to its 300,000 public sector employees that it is going to control their wages — and may in some cases reduce them — has a responsibility to those people. It has a responsibility to the total community, because frightening those people affects the whole community. It does have a responsibility to the people directly affected, as well as to the total community.

"De Roo said Monday that the Socred's legislative package hurts people and contains a structural disorder that is evil."

Legislation that hurts people who are relatively defenceless is bad legislation. Many of the people under the control of Bill 11 are unable to do anything at all about it, especially when they negotiate, through their representatives, agreements with the government, which that government then proceeds to ignore.

"Bennett replied that de Roo should come up with concrete proposals on how to produce income and wealth, instead of criticizing government."

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I'd like to announce to the chamber that a fellow Commonwealth country has just won the America's Cup.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. That was announced in the House about an hour ago.

MR. STUPICH: It's good news anyway.

"But de Roo said Thursday, 'the problem lies not with spending in itself, but what it is spent for, and who benefits from the spending.'" Again we have questions about spending, questions that to this point we have had no opportunity to raise. I believe that has to be the root of my argument. Until we can look at the expenditure program in detail, and at the estimates of the various ministries, we have no appreciation of the way in which this program is going to work.

I don't believe in restraint for the sake of restraint alone. I'd like to have some details. I'd like to know how this is going to be implemented, ministry by ministry. I'd like to know what the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has in mind when we talk about restraint in that particular ministry. What kind of services are going to be cut? What kind of child-care programs are going to be abandoned in the name of restraint? Without asking the taxpayers whether or not they want to continue the operation of such services as rape relief centres, without asking them if they can afford to continue paying for that, is that program going to be amended or dropped? We should have the answers to questions such as how this restraint program is going to be implemented, ministry by ministry, before we write, in effect, a blank cheque, and say to the government: "Go ahead; do whatever you want. We don't really care. When the time comes we'll find out some of the details. We'll find out what we agreed to. We'll find out sometime later the effect of what we voted on previously." We should be finding that out ahead of time. As the bishop said, what we spend the money on, and how we spend it, should be our main concern. Or, in his words: "The problem lies not with spending in itself, but what it is spent for, and who benefits from the spending."

When the poorer people in the community are given larger allowances and when they get tax credits.... In my constituency I talked to a group of students who met me by appointment during the election campaign, and then after.

Their concern was about the tax credit they had expected to get, and that they hoped would help them pay their tuition fees to go on attending Malaspina College. Those people were being seriously affected by the restraint program. It's what we spend the money on that counts. Nobody is against restraint. The heart of the issue is who is going to pay for the restraint program, the poor or the rich? The bishop answers this by asking the next question: "The weak or the powerful?" As this government sees it, the weak are going to pay. The powerful are not going to be touched.

"De Roo said his views are traditional church teaching, not political ideology as Bennett claims. At no time have any church leaders I know ever said that profits are not correct or acceptable or legitimate — in fact, the social teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and most Christian bodies have, over the last century or so, been insistent on the right to private property and private profit. 'The thing that is frequently forgotten is that the capacity or power to make a profit has social obligations attached to it.'"

Where the social obligation is not accepted by those people who have the ability, authority and opportunity to practise it, then government has to interfere — not on the side of the powerful but on the side of the powerless, the side of the people who need that kind of assistance.

"A restraint warning for Bennett and a pat on the back." Times-Colonist of August 9: "Think Again, Lawyers Urge Premier." Wherever you turn, publication after publication is attacking the government's restraint program, the budget and the legislation, saying it was the wrong thing to do, the wrong time to impose tax increases, the wrong time to impose tax cutbacks on levels of government service. The wrong time to cut out services for the needy.

"A group of 25 Victoria lawyers wants the provincial government to reconsider its restraint legislation. The lawyers are alarmed at what they said is an attack on individual and community rights." That's not directly connected with Bill 11, so I won't go any further with that. Of course the lawyers are concerned with that aspect of the program, as opposed to some of the economic aspects.

One of the problems — we'll get around to it when we get to estimates, I'm sure — is that the ministry which proposes to get a greater increase, in terms of dollars, than any other ministry is the Ministry of Human Resources, because they anticipate that there are going to be more people on welfare. You can't threaten to lay off 25 percent of some 300,000 people and not expect that there will be many more people receiving social assistance. It takes time to work through the system, but eventually they'll be on social assistance. What are those people going to do to increase consumer spending? What are they going to do to the people with whom they come in contact? All of those people are going to be completely without confidence with respect to the future, and confidence is the thing we need above all else.

"Restraint's Truth Clear in Six Months." This article is by Stephen Hume. There's a picture here of a fellow by the name of Walker. "The B.C. government's restraint program has launched the province on a revolution marked by bold political courage, Michael Walker, director of the Fraser Institute, said Friday. 'After six months or a year, when people see the world hasn't come to an end, the changes will be seen as pathbreaking and incisive,' Walker said in an interview." I wonder where he's been since February 1982. He says in six months or a year everything is going to be great because of

[ Page 1935 ]

this program being implemented in July 1983. By that time the program had been in effect for some 16 months already. Is he not aware of this? Does he not know what's happening in the province? Does he not know that since that program came into effect B.C. got relatively worse, compared with the other provinces? Does he not know that since the budget and pieces of legislation came down and have been discussed, the more people became aware of them the more discouraged they became, and the less confidence they had? Does he not know that very soon after the introduction of that budget and the attendant pieces of legislation, B.C.'s credit rating was downgraded? What does he expect to happen in the next six months to change all that? Everything we have seen would indicate the picture in B.C. is getting worse as a result of what this government has done, starting in February 1982, and yet this guru, who supports the present administration, tells us that things are going to get better.

In the Times-Colonist of August 20 the headline is: "Dean Labels Socred Restraints Penny-Wise and Pound Foolish."

"The Social Credit program is 'penny-wise and pound-foolish,' and could cost taxpayers more in the long run, says a University of Victoria professor. Brian Wharf, dean of the university's faculty of human and social development, said cutbacks to social services announced so far have focused primarily on preventive programs such as family counselling and juvenile diversion centres. Without these support programs the stress and uncertainty of economic hardship could lead to neglect or abuse of children, and then to court action and foster care far costlier than the services being chopped."

That message should be listened to by the government. They should be looking at some of the services they're cutting not just the social services mentioned in this article.

I've spoken about this previously and I'd like to do it again. I can't think of any time when it's more important to provide more educational opportunities than in times such as we're going through now. This is when they're needed. This is when we should be providing more opportunities for people to upgrade themselves, and more opportunities for people to simply exercise their minds. This is the time it should be done; otherwise it will be much more expensive in the long run. This is the time when the colleges have room to teach people new skills, and when the economy does improve we will need those skills. I remember reading stories about the northeast coal, and that when that coal came on stream we would have to import miners, because we just don't have people trained to do that kind of work. We're short of trained, skilled work. We should be training them now. They are unemployed, ready, anxious, able and willing. Everything is there except the training facility itself, and the budgets for all of these facilities have been cut back. That is being penny wise and pound foolish.

Going back to this particular article:

"'It might be seen as penny-wise, pound-foolish philosophy,' said Wharf, whose faculty includes the schools of social work, nursing, child care, public administration and health services. 'It doesn't seem to be in any way, shape or form a reasoned set of cuts. They have been in preventive programs, which in the long run appear to be effective from both a cost and a human point of view.'"

It is cheaper to look after people in the way in which we have been looking after them with the various services the government is talking about cutting out. Cheaper in the long run.

I started out my remarks earlier in the afternoon by talking about Tranquille, and in my mind and from what I have seen, that is the most economic way of looking after people like that. It's not only cheaper from an economic point of view but the best way from the point of view of the people going through the system. It's pound-foolish to change programs like that. It saves very little money but there is a tremendous cost in terms of the human experience.

"Wharf said the family support worker program, eliminated in a torrent of cutbacks in the Ministry of Human Resources that resulted in 599 employees being fired, provided crucial counselling that often prevented child neglect or abuse." How can we measure the cost of child neglect and child abuse? Some 599 employees have been laid off, and we haven't had an opportunity to discuss with the minister the effect on individuals, and I am sure every one of us in the House could stand up and talk about the way that program has served the needs of people in our own constituencies. Yet it has been chopped, we are told, on the basis of ability to pay. The electorate were not asked during the election campaign: "Do you believe in firing 599 employees who have been working in these fields of child abuse, child neglect?" Perhaps the electorate, if they were asked that question, would say: "Yes, we do want to continue that service; we would far rather have those people working and providing that particular service, because in the long run we know that it is going to be pound-wise and it would be penny-foolish to get rid of that program now."

[4:30]

I could go on all afternoon giving examples of how this program is contrary to the best interests of the community. I don't understand the government's arguments at all. The Minister of Finance today, in introducing the program, did nothing to convince me that he really believes in the program that he introduced.

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister says he really does. It disturbs me that he thinks that it is that important to centralize so much influence over the lives of so many people in the hands of cabinet, that this form of dictatorship is best for them and best for us, that we can't really rely on democracy to get us out of the mess that the government has gotten us into. He says he really believes that this level of dictatorship is the route to go. He said he really believes that the ability to pay should be the determining factor. Yet I think he would have to admit that in every instance in the whole of the public sector, ability to pay is a decision that is made by cabinet, not by anyone else. Using ability to pay as an excuse for determining remuneration, working conditions or anything else about employees is simply an excuse for the government's own decision.

In saying that the program is going to be continued indefinitely he is admitting that the program to date has done nothing to turn around the economy. We look at the evidence as to how badly B.C. has fared compared to the rest of the country. B.C. was the first, they are proud to say, to get into this kind of a restraint program. If we are the first and we are

[ Page 1936 ]

also doing the worst, Mr. Speaker, how can the minister say that he really believes that this is the route to go? It isn't the route to go. Ability to pay means only that the cabinet is going to make the decision. It is centralism at its worst. It does away completely with any process of consultation or negotiation and it is going to be bad for the economy.

I have produced enough material, I believe, to convince anyone who will listen.... Anyone of any authority would say that the wrong time to increase government revenues is during a period when there is a fragile sense of recovery. The worst thing to do to that process is to impose tax increases. It is a way of putting on the brakes. You don't put on the brakes when the vehicle just starts moving. If you want to discourage consumer spending, if you want to slow things down, then you cut back on salaries and you threaten people with job layoffs, and that is what we are doing. If the government had wanted to slow down the recovery, that would have been the way to do it: increase taxes, threaten people with layoff, threaten salary reductions and impose salary reductions. I'd like the minister to comment on that, Mr. Speaker, when he closes on second reading. Does he not agree that if he wanted to slow down the recovery he would increase taxes and reduce the amount of money going to some 300,000 people in the community? On the other hand, if he wants to increase the rate of recovery, would he not at least leave taxes where they are — if he didn't feel he could reduce them — and put more money into the pockets of the poorest people in the community, knowing full well that they are going to spend it on consumer goods? Then there would be more retail sales, more wholesale sales and more production. It's so obvious and logical that I don't know how the minister can say that he really believes that in spite of the failure of this program over the past 17 months it's still the right way to go.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition is completely opposed to Bill 11. We believe it's the worst possible thing to do for the economy of British Columbia right now. We hope that the government will take a second look at this. One of the worst features is to say that we're so discouraged, we have so little optimism for the future, we believe things are going to be so bad under our administration that we can no longer look forward to that point in time when we can return to negotiations. We're removing all time limits from this legislation and saying that from here on, forever plus a day, cabinet is going to have to make all these decisions because under Social Credit the economy of the province will never recover to the point where we can get back to collective bargaining. We can never get back to democracy. We're always going to have to exist with cabinet making all of these decisions. If things are that bad, then I would suggest to this government that they take this legislation back, wait until the economy improves to the point where this legislation won't do as much harm as it's doing right now, and then try, once again, to bring it forward.

At this time the legislation should be withdrawn. We urge the government to take a second look at this. Second looks are not new for Social Credit. The administration of W.A.C. Bennett used to take second looks when it realized the error of its ways. On one occasion that I can recall, this government did take a second look when it brought in a redistribution bill that was so bad that even they were embarrassed. So there are times when they can take a second look. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the times when they should. I urge the government to take a second look, withdraw this bill — at least for the time being — look at it, consider it and then try to come up with a program which instead of working against economic recovery would help promote some kind of recovery so that B.C. could once again join with the rest of Canada in working toward economic recovery in this great country of ours.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, it's always a pleasure to follow the member for Nanaimo. He's a distinguished accountant. Certainly he's been in this Legislature a long time — a lot longer than I have. As an accountant he'll know that the balance-sheet equation is that assets equal liabilities plus the shareholders' equity. The shareholders' equity in this particular case is very strained; in fact, it is an enormous deficit.

Why is the compensation stabilization plan being changed? In tough economic circumstances it's time to recognize that the level of compensation in the public sector must reflect the people's ability to pay. We're not talking about the government's ability to pay, but about the ability of people — some who have been laid off, such as members of the IWA who have worked on greenchains. They have no money to send to government. For the life of me, I can't understand how people so eminent as the member who spoke just before me can expect us to go further and further into debt, and how they feel the public sector alone should be held blameless and harmless during this time of economic restraint.

I've been thinking about Bill 11 over the last little while, Mr. Speaker. I'm very pleased to rise and to speak on it, because it's one of the most important pieces of legislation to face this Legislature now or in my memory. I'm thinking of leadership as opposed to privilege. I was looking at this morning's papers, both the Times-Colonist and the Province, which carried a headline: "Fryer — One Layoff Means a General Strike." I'm talking about leadership as opposed to privilege in this province. Who do Mr. Fryer and his group think he is that he can say that he and his group have a particular privilege over and above the other people who must ultimately pay the wages? That's what we're talking about in restraint, make no mistake about it — all of the other rhetoric aside. I believe Mr. Fryer has got his foot in the collective mouths of the members of the BCGEU, because I've worked with many of these people over the years and I know that many of them are just as incensed and just as supportive of restraint as we are here on our side of the House.

I've been thinking about leadership: in times of great stress in the British Commonwealth of Nations, we've always been fortunate to have leaders come our way. We've had many leaders. In Canada, we had John A. Macdonald and Laurier — some great leaders. One of the greatest of leaders, whose 109th birthday we would celebrate in just a few days were he living, is Sir Winston Churchill. Just after the war, the poet laureate of Britain, John Masefield, spoke of Churchill. He added a codicil to one of his famous poems, but it was never published. He said: "This man in darkness saw, in doubting led, in uttermost despair found light that made the midnight fair." He wasn't talking about someone who wanted to mortgage the future of our children and our children's children. He was talking about real leadership in a real man.

I suggest that today we have that same kind of leadership in many of us here in this province, and it's pronounced in greater ways and in greater people who happen to come to the floor, and that leadership is shown in Bill Bennett and the

[ Page 1937 ]

courage that this minister has had in bringing this legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, in discussing the ramifications of Bill 11, I think it's extremely important that we don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. The forest, in my view, is the overall expansion of government at all levels in our society since the Second World War, and the terrific costs it has exacted in ways that are obvious and in ways that are less obvious but no less costly. I'm referring to inflation. It's a word that you don't hear so much about nowadays in Canada or, indeed, in North America, and, for very good reason, in British Columbia, in that this government took decisive leadership. But unlike Mr. Trudeau, we don't believe that we've wrestled inflation to the ground. We haven't done that; it's still there lurking about and ready to rear its ugly head. We can't afford to live in any sort of fool's paradise. I know that's the NDP line. In good times, their policy was to spend more money; in so-so times, it was to spend more money; in absolutely rotten times, it was to spend more and more money; today, in a moderate start to recovery, their policy is to spend more money. Whose money? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, where are those funds supposed to come from? I can understand why so many PhDs in our province belong to the NDP; it takes an awful lot of education to figure out a policy like that, and none at all to formulate it.

Public sector restraint is not a British Columbia problem alone; it's a world problem. I was going to say free world, but it occurs to me that the only reason we can refer to a free world at all is that there are some countries in the world which, like our own, put limits on the size and scope of government. Contrary to what some of our opposition critics are saying, that's what makes us free.

I recently had the occasion to look at a recent book by Dr. William Lovett of the Tulane University Law School, entitled Inflation and Politics. That's an interesting title. The book has a chapter entitled "Institutional Overloads," which I think deserves quoting.

[4:45]

"Institutional rigidities and limits placed on efficient industrial progress have become a significant factor in inflationary momentum. Excessive regulation and tax loads imposed on the marketplace are a major part of this problem. Consequently, the pleas for retrenchment, deregulation and eliminating red tape are growing increasingly popular, especially in advanced industrial nations like the United States, Britain or France" — and he could have added Canada — "where economic progress has slowed in recent years.

"This new outlook presents a valuable opportunity for healthy reform, which helps support long-run efforts towards reducing the burden and risks of inflation. Unfortunately, the accumulated network of spending compromises, proliferated laws, administrative agencies, constituency politics and confusion makes this area of reform slow-moving. Even though current moods in the United States" — and he might have added Canada — "encourage a lot of political rhetoric and journalistic criticism against bureaucracy, overloaded government, and tax revolt for reduced public sectors, the actual progress towards retrenchment has been modest indeed."

Dr. Lovett continues:

"For anti-inflation policy the implications are clear. Although the ultimate benefits from an improved institutional framework will be considered, and we must reverse a trend towards social waste and sluggishness" in the public sector, "this victory will not be quick or simple. Hence the major short-term reductions in inflation rates must proceed through fiscal, monetary and-or wage-price discipline.

"Deregulation and institutional overhaul will come more slowly. These complicated reforms can never be an effective substitute for prompt discipline in 'macroeconomics,' but they are complementary and will promote industrial efficiency and make inflation less burdensome in the long run."

The problem is immense. Even governments in Britain, the United States and Canada — to a lesser degree in Canada at this point in time — which are dedicated to grappling with it have had considerable difficulty in turning around the inertial momentum of government growth. It has grown at an unprecedented rate over the last few years. The problem has to be faced. I submit that the time to face it is not three months or six months or even three weeks from today. The problem is now, and we must face it now.

I'd like to quote Dr. Lovett again just briefly. I won't take up too much of the time of the House, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Lovett said:

"The most important requirement for discipline in macroeconomics — fiscal, monetary and wageprice policy — is hard-headed realism. Delay and temporizing only make things worse. Inflationary momentum becomes more firmly entrenched, distortions become aggravated, and the credibility of government declines.

"Unfortunately, self-awareness is painful for countries strongly gripped by this disease" of overspending. "Politicians in inflation-ridden countries must admit that short-run living standards and governmental programs should be reduced. But the ultimate expense of procrastination will be even worse, as the basic strength of an economy and its growth potential are weakened and further demoralized" — if we do not act now.

So that's the forest, Mr. Speaker: an urgent need for hard-headed realization and realism through government.

Let's take a look at some of the trees that we mentioned that are contained in this legislation. When this legislation was first introduced, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) made it clear that amendments are needed to reinforce the Compensation Stabilization Act, ensuring that public service salaries are based on the employer's ability to pay and proven increases in productivity. With this legislation we're aiming to strike a more fair balance between the private and public sectors. We've all heard the popular folklore and jokes about the civil service. I don't like that sort of thing any more than members of the opposition do. The way to eliminate those jokes and those attitudes is not to run away from the problem, not to go on strike — as Mr. Fryer proposes — but to face it, by ensuring comparability between the public and private sectors, as Bill 11 tries to do. That's what we're talking about here in this House today.

In my view, a position in the public service is an honourable one, but there should neither be penalty nor privilege. The fact is that government by and large has been leading the

[ Page 1938 ]

private sector in the value of combined wages, salaries and benefits; there's no question about that.

Paying taxes is rarely a pleasure. Members of this House might consider how a small businessman feels who pays taxes to a government which then pays wages and benefits he can't match in his own business; through this man's tax contribution the government steals away employees whom he could have employed in his own business.

How often have small businesses been adversely affected by legislation? How often do they attempt to consider the world from the point of view of a small businessman? All those ordinary taxpayers — greenchain workers, people in the IWA, construction workers — are not working but are still expected to pay taxes to support the civil service. How often has Mr. Fryer or the opposition considered the plight of these people who are, after all, our ultimate employers and have to pay the bill?

Why shouldn't a clothing store owner be cynical about a system that uses his taxes to unfairly compete with him for employees? Why shouldn't that person be cynical? Why shouldn't a student feel cynical about a system that grants large wage increases to his teachers but which may not be able to provide him with a job on graduation?

We talk of cost, Mr. Speaker. Cost is not limited to dollars and cents. Yes, I'm concerned about the dollars and cents, but I'm equally concerned about the cost to our democracy of the cynicism this generates. The only way I know of to strike a fair deal between the public and private sectors is to incorporate into the public sector management the same essential criteria that must guide private sector employers: productivity and ability to pay. That's what we're talking about.

If you'll think about it for just a moment, sir, we're saying something pretty astounding with this legislation that we have before the House, and I compliment the Minister of Finance on it. In effect, we're telling our industrial workers, our small business people, our farmers, clericals and professionals, we're telling all of these groups in society who pay the bills that productivity and ability to pay may not have mattered to governments in years past, but to the Social Credit government it matters now. We're protecting you, the people who pay the bills.

I might say that the Broadbent-Trudeau socialists have given a new meaning to the term "rat hole," as it applies to people's money. They've been able to pour money down that. Clearly that has not been the case at the provincial level, but any organization has a built-in tendency to waste money to the extent that it is not held accountable for that waste. In small business, as those of us know who have been engaged in small businesses at certain times in our lives, waste catches up with people very quickly. In giant corporations a particular division may be able to carry on with waste, but eventually it will show up. Even auto manufacturers can lose money, Mr. Speaker, contrary to the socialist rhetoric of 15 years ago. We don't hear that one any more. We know how many auto workers have been laid off as a result of being inefficient and unable to be competitive with other countries in the world where they have not been so afflicted with the disease of socialism. We have seen that in the auto industry.

In government, it has seemed for such a long time that accountability could be indefinitely postponed because the public had a bottomless purse. Today we know better. I believe that in their heart of hearts the opposition know that the jig is up as far as this proliferation of public spending is concerned. I believe they understand that. I believe they know it. But I don't know to which tune or to whose drummer they are marching. I honestly don't know.

It must be pretty devastating, when your whole raison d'etre in public life is spending other people's money, to wake up one morning to find out that that reason for existence is not there anymore. The act is tough, Mr. Speaker. We all recognize that, but let's recall a few pertinent facts. Last year one employed person in four in our province worked directly for the provincial government. As a matter of fact, fewer than 15 percent were direct employees of provincial government ministries. The number of direct federal employees, as I mentioned before, in our province was just barely less than the number of provincial employees — 43,243 of these, as compared to 43,458 of their provincial counterparts. Far more than either of these groups worked in health care, which was 69,354 employees. The largest component worked in a field in which I have been involved over the years, the field of education: 77,500 employees in the education field alone. When you consider that 75 to 80 percent of the cost of delivering educational and health services to our people is represented by the cost of salaries, wages and other benefits for those who are employed in the system, you begin to gain some perspective into the problem that the minister is attempting to address in this legislation today.

The protection and preservation of our essential services in times of diminishing revenues, Mr. Speaker, absolutely demands some kind of compensation limitation. The NDP can talk until next August, or the August after that if they want to, but they'll simply never be able to talk themselves out of that fact. It's too glaring. To deny or ignore such elementary economic realities is to be irresponsible. We are dealing not only with ourselves and the people, our benefactors, not only with the so-called Solidarity or with Mr. Fryer and his group, but also with the future of our children and our children's children, who must ultimately pay the tab in years to come.

Mr. Speaker, in voting on this bill, who really cares about the sick and the poor and the children of British Columbia? Are they only pawns in the game of political manipulation and deception? I think not. I hope not. Are they only practising enlightened self-interest? I hope not. I hope not for the future of our province and my grandchildren which will follow after me.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude on a very positive note. I'd like to refer members to the August 1983 Labour Research Bulletin provided by our own Ministry of Labour. There's a very interesting chart of annual inflation rates. At its peak in the fourth quarter, I believe, of 1981 our provincial inflation was over 14 percent, and well ahead of the national average. In the second quarter of 1983, that rate had fallen well below 6 percent and, in fact, below the national level in Canada. That is a fact. This means not just that we have some relief in the short run; it means that we have a greatly improved chance in the long run of holding on to those vital export markets upon which all of our standards of living depend — including Mr. Fryer's people and our people in the province of British Columbia. That in turn means we may be able to afford to continue a high level of social services for our people in this province in the future, for in the end it all comes back to productivity. It all comes back to the people's ability, through their respective governments, to pay, including the cost of government, and it has to be done at a reasonable cost.

[ Page 1939 ]

[5:00]

We're winning the battle against inflation. Let's continue until we have won the war. I support this legislation. Let's quit addressing the negatives and let's push the positive button. I support Bill 11 100 percent.

MR. HOWARD. Mr. Speaker, I listened with appreciation to the comments of the member for Burnaby-Willingdon. I made a few notes as he went along — not as many as I was able to, because I was enraptured and listened more than I was able to write down. In essence, I paid a great deal of attention, and I have not heard before in the House a statement of self-condemnation of such magnitude, in a political sense, as the one I heard just now from the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

The clichés, the phraseology, the declarations were all fine, if it weren't for a little bit of history. He went on at some length about the NDP having, so he claimed — and I want to submit that he's wrong, of course — a policy of, in good times, spending more tax money; in bad times of spending more tax money; and even in neutral times of spending more tax money.

I know the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon wasn't in this chamber as a member in the last parliament, but he should have looked at the record. Some of his colleagues were here. Let me put before you, Mr. Speaker, and before the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, a contrary view to that which he has just argued, and point out to him that if there was in this province a group of people in the last fiscal year, and the fiscal year before, that was responsible, careful and considerate about the expenditure of public funds, it was the NDP in opposition. Absolutely. The record is there. Anybody who will spend the time to look at the Journals of the House for the fiscal years 1981-82 and 1982-83 will see that we in the NDP, during consideration of the estimates of all ministries for those two fiscal periods, moved motion after motion to save public money, to restrain the government in its profligacy.

I'm on the bill just as much, Mr. Speaker, as was the member for Burnaby-Willingdon. Restraint is what we're talking about. The bill is the Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act. We're talking to the companion to compensation that's spending public money, attempting to point out how wrong the member for Burnaby-Willingdon was about that two-year period.

In the 1981-82 fiscal year, we sought to deal with such avenues of public expenditure as travelling expenses — flitting around the world and the country — office expenses, office furnishings, advertising, padded accounts to BCBC and B.C. Systems Corporation. To go back to the preceding fiscal year at just that level of expenditure, we sought to cut out of the Premier's office $50,000. You may say that's not very much, but it was the amount that we could find in the Premier's office — which is a small budget compared to some other ministries — that was excessive insofar as office furnishings, office expenses, advertising, travel and the like was concerned. When we moved the motions to do that, every Social Credit member in this House stood up and voted against our initiative to curtail government expenditures. Look at the record; it's there.

In the Ministry of Labour, we discovered a $916,000 extraordinary expense in the fiscal year 1981-82, as compared with 1980-81. We proposed motions and amendments to cut that back, and every Social Credit member in the House at that time, led by the Minister of Finance, voted against restraint. I could go all the way down the line, every ministry and every department in that 1981-82 fiscal year. More than two years ago we could see the hand-writing on the wall. We saw the necessity of curtailing government expenditure of public funds, and wanted to cut a total of $81,936,012 out of the budget for such things as advertising, office furnishings — how many couches can you use? Office expenses — paper, new typewriters and whatever else goes into making up office expenses. Advertising, unnecessarily padded. Payments to BCBC and B.C. Systems Corporation. Eighty-one million dollars: two years ago that's what we sought to save the taxpayers of this province. I consider that a very responsible, careful and considerate approach to public expenditures in this province. I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch), if that government had taken heed two years ago of our foresight and commitment to save public funds, we might not be in the mess we are in now.

The member for Burnaby-Willingdon is wrong when he says the time to deal with this is now. The time was two years ago, when the opportunity existed, and when we placed it before this House. Last year we did the same thing, for another $76 million saving. If only the government had listened, Mr. Chief Government Whip! If only the government had listened to common sense last year and the year before. That is responsibility, that is carefulness on the part of the NDP, and that is absolutely contrary to any false information that the member for Burnaby-Willingdon tries to put forth with respect to our attitude and our approach.

He waved around a newspaper. I didn't read that particular one. It may be what John Fryer said. I am given to understand that that is what Norm Richards said. It doesn't matter to me which one said it; neither of those gentlemen is foolish or stupid, but that was a stupid statement, and I said that earlier today. Absolutely ridiculous, stupid and foolish. That doesn't detract from what they were perhaps trying to do in a negotiating stance, but I don't know that. I don't know what their strategy was, but the implication of what was said here a while ago by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon was to somehow look for the enemy out there, rather than internally. Do you remember that cartoon character Pogo? He said: "We have seen the enemy and it is us." Look for the enemy, Mr. Chief Government Whip, within your own caucus. That's where you will find the problem, not outside in some headline that is meaningless by itself.

I also want to point out to the member for Burnaby-Willingdon that if this government really said yes, it's concerned about restraining government expenditures.... Remember, that is what we are talking about: the spending of taxpayers' money. If they had been interested in that in a very serious way, they would not have increased the budget expenditure this year by 16.7 percent over last year. There is a 16.7 percent increase in budgetary expenditures this year over the budget of last year.

We talked about inflation being at — what level? At 7 percent, 5 percent, something like that. I remember that the Premier of this province in Ottawa on one occasion to talk about government expenditures urged, and declared as a policy, that an increase in government expenditure should always be below the percentage increase in the gross provincial or gross national product. For example, if the gross national product increased by 10 percent, then the budget should increase by only 9 percent. That was his argument to

[ Page 1940 ]

the Prime Minister and the government of Canada. He immediately came back home and the first thing that his Minister of Finance did in the following budget was disregard that edict completely and increase the budgetary expenditures in this province by 20 percent over the preceding year. He ignored completely the soundness of what the Premier argued in Ottawa was a sound policy with respect to increases in public spending. We agreed with what the Premier was trying to do at that time. But when we turned around and found out that the budget introduced by the Minister of Finance in that particular year was more than double the gross provincial product, we were appalled to think that either the Premier had gone to Ottawa and was playing propaganda games, or he had no control whatever over the provincial Minister of Finance in the preparation of the budget. He was either playing games and didn't mean what he said, or he came back home and forgot all about it and the Minister of Finance ran rampant and raging, hoping and praying that inflation would continue so that he, the Minister of Finance, could have an elevated budget all the way along the line.

Mr. Speaker, when the chief government Whip embarks upon discussions like he just embarked upon, it would be most helpful if he'd get the facts straight. It isn't that he's speaking in a vacuum where nobody's listening to him. He might be able to go to his constituency association and get away with that kind of stuff, but get the facts straight. It'll give a little bit more credibility to what you're trying to put across.

[5:15]

They talk about the Compensation Stabilization Act, and the amendment act that's before us. I'm quoting the Minister of Finance now. I'm going to deal with another aspect of what I consider to be, in a very delicate sense, some rather foolish, stupid declarations on the part of this government about fiscal matters and about monetary matters. When he was talking about the bill last year — and we can't look at this bill before us without its implications with respect to the act that it seeks to amend, because one is companion to the other — the minister said: "Through this winter and early this year, the provincial government was faced with a situation which I described at length in earlier remarks: a rapidly deteriorating economic situation, the main elements of which were generated outside and therefore beyond the control of this province."

Well, that is simply not true. I know the minister is always sensitive when the word "truth" comes up. He didn't jump to his feet this time so I assume he knows what I mean by the use of the word. That is simply not a true statement, because this government, in another presentation — in another opportunity, I should say, during the presentation to the federal government which I mentioned earlier.... This government went back east and met with the federal people and said to Prime Minister Trudeau: "You, Prime Minister Trudeau, and you, the Bank of Canada, are on the right track with your high interest rate policies. Go for it. Keep interest rates high and let them go higher. You're doing the correct thing for the economy." That was advocated by this Premier. That was supported by this Minister of Finance and every member of the cabinet. They followed some obscure, senseless policy that said high interest rates were helpful, and urged the federal government to continue it. It was this province's doing. It was this province's endorsement. It was this province's case before the federal people to increase interest rates.

So when the minister said that the main elements of the rapidly deteriorating economic situation were beyond the control of this province, that was utter arrant nonsense. Because it was this government and this minister who urged the federal government to escalate interest rates. And they did, too, to a point where the economy not only deteriorated; it nearly collapsed, as a result primarily — almost exclusively — of high interest rates. The fault about high interest rates, if there is fault, lies directly on the shoulders of this Minister of Finance. If he hadn't have been so careless in his assessment of fiscal or monetary policy at the federal level, and advocated what he did advocate and what the Premier advocated, then we wouldn't be in the miserable situation that we're in right now. But that's what he said. "Let's jack up interest rates. That's the way to go."

Interest rates were jacked up, and they denied people the opportunity to use borrowed money. They added to the cost of carrying inventory in car-dealers' activities. They added to the cost of inventory of the lumber industry. They slowed down and practically stopped the building of homes in both the United States and Canada, because people couldn't afford those high interest rates. They would not commit themselves to a debt of that nature. The lumber industry suffered, and the mining industry suffered because a great deal of the copper that we produce goes into electrical circuitry and into copper pipes for water supply systems for homes — all because this government thought it was a wise move to increase interest rates. A more foolish policy has never been visited upon this nation. They can't turn around and condemn poor old Pierre Trudeau, saying: "Pierre, you did all this to us." Nonsense. Sure, he was a handmaiden to it; he believed in it himself; but it wasn't his exclusive doing. It was participatory destruction of our economy by this Premier who urged them to carry that on.

The minister further said that government spending had to be controlled so that as much as possible of the province's financial resources could be freed for maintaining people services in a period of economic downturn and also to give the opportunity to create employment. That's a nice phrase; a nice statement and nice words carefully put forward. But we compare those words with the fact that in the very same year the minister spoke those words he and his colleagues stood up and voted against the curtailment — as we proposed it — of provincial government expenditure to the tune of $76 million in that fiscal year.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was here. Yes, I don't need to remind him of that. Other colleagues in the House were not, and they're blameless in this whole process, admittedly; they weren't here to do it. But Mr. Speaker was here; he did it. He was one who stood up, followed the lead and voted against that.

In the one breath the minister said: "Government spending had to be controlled." Yet when he stood up in the House to do something about it he voted against controlling government expenditures. How is one supposed to read that kind of — let's be polite — ambivalence, that propaganda declaration in support of a particular piece of legislation, when he votes contrary to what the declaration is? It's that sort of double standard, that sort of two-facedness, that attracts people in this province to be cynical about government — not

[ Page 1941 ]

about this government particularly, but about government and politics generally.

The other day I got a letter from a gentleman who said: "Admittedly, politics is not an honest profession." That's a label. It used to be, "Admittedly, all lords are drunks, " but that's not so.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Or "All judges are sober," as my friend says. I have no way of knowing whether that is so or not so, because I don't know all judges. The broad brush of a label that says a group has a particular quality about it is nonsense. Yet I got that in a letter from a gentleman who wrote to me about something.

As I said earlier, it's the type of two-facedness exhibited by this Minister of Finance that leads people to the conclusion that there's dishonesty involved in politics. Then they take the next step and say: "The whole crowd of you are not honest people. The whole profession of politics is not honest." It's unfortunate, but people come to that conclusion. It would have been far better for the minister to have stood up in the House in support of the Compensation Stabilization Act and to have said something like this: "Government spending had to be controlled. We made a mistake a year ago when we didn't follow the lead of the NDP." That would have been the honest and honourable thing to do, but he didn't do it. We're now faced with having to deal with a problem that was primarily created by this government.

I want to tell you more about how you develop cynicism and an attitude on the part of the electorate — the people out there — that politics is not an honest profession. People who are in it do tell lies, and people who are in it do tell the truth as well. For political purposes, politicians do attempt to mislead the people and the House, and they do that more before an election than afterwards.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, I've come to that conclusion: that it is more likely to take place before an election than afterwards.

Let's see what took place before the election. I'm going to read four quick quotations from the Minister of Finance, all of them interspersed throughout a number of paragraphs in his speech in support of second reading of the act. This is pre-election. "The stabilization program is short-term in nature, and deliberately flexible in its operation." Another quotation: "Generally speaking, public sector employees will be subject to the program for 24 consecutive months." Here's another: "Essentially, employees will be in the program for only two years, a limited period of time." And later: "To return to the program itself, it has a limited two-year cycle." There, in the short space of half a column in Hansard, the minister reiterates that it's a two-year venture. That's all. They're out in 24 months. They're not covered any further.

That was before the election. A number of people accepted that and said, "All right, I suppose for short-term measures we can do with this intrusion into the normal relationships between employees and employers," and they went along with it. It is the same as last year's Education (Interim) Finance Act, which was to be in place only until the end of next year. Now suddenly, when it was introduced a few days ago, we found out it's forever. That's the same as this bill before us now. No longer do the pre-election declarations of the Minister of Finance apply. No longer can people look at the Minister of Finance and say he is an honourable gentleman because he told us the truth last year and he's sticking by it. They will look at the Minister of Finance and say, "He told us one thing last year, and now he's bringing in a bill to do something entirely opposite," because that's what this bill does. It makes the application of the Compensation Stabilization Act permanent.

Look at section 9 of the act. This is what the law says now and what the minister was talking about last year. "The guidelines shall specify a period of time, not to exceed 24 consecutive months, when the limitations...are to apply," etc. We now have a bill before us which is post-election, and one can drag out the real truth behind the intentions of the government last year. Now we have an amendment to say that's wiped out. That section of the act is to disappear forever. It's gone. There's no more — "24 consecutive months", or 36, or 48, or any other period of time. It's forever. The guidelines can indicate whether the compensation will be maintained or reduced — that wasn't in the original act either — or if increases in compensation will be limited.

When you embark upon dealing with the fundamentals of collective bargaining.... Any free enterpriser — in the political sense — that I have ever heard always says that collective bargaining is a marketplace mechanism. It's part of the free enterprise system. It's the marketplace that determines whether or not there's going to be a collective agreement, and the extent to which the collective agreement will cover factors like wages, hours, working conditions and other benefits. It's a contest between the employer, on the one hand, and his ability to pay whatever it is that may be payable, and the employees, on the other hand, who say: "We want to contend with you against this sort of thing." Collective bargaining is a way of life in this province and this nation, and has been for quite a long period of time. It's injured, if not destroyed, by the particular bill before us. No longer is there to be the potential for the marketplace economy to prevail.

Here they are with their buttons! What do these ones say?

AN HON. MEMBER: "The winning team."

MR. HOWARD: Wear it in a conspicuous place.

[5:30]

The College and Institute Act defines an institution as a public sector employer. The provincial treasury is the source of 100 percent of the funds of colleges under that act; they don't tax or raise money elsewhere. Some funds come from tuition fees, or something of that sort, but by and large it's provincial money. What will occur now is that all of the directors of a college will be appointed by the government. Political appointees or otherwise, all will be appointed by the government, and the provincial government will determine what amount of money is available to the college.

If they believe in the market system as it relates to collective bargaining, why do they need this institutionalized structure in the Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act that gives cabinet the final authority over whatever happens? What's wrong with leaving it open and saying to the college: "You've got so much money here, and that's all you've got. You negotiate with your employees on that basis. Whatever the marketplace determines will prevail will in fact prevail."

[ Page 1942 ]

They're not going to spend any more money than is available; they can't. So we are really embarking upon a course of destroying collective bargaining in the public sector. They'll go through the motions: they'll go to the meetings and put forward the propositions, and they will listen to the propositions, knowing full well beforehand that it's inevitable that they will come out at the other end with exactly, no more than, what the government sitting here in Victoria determines shall be the case.

We should not destroy something which people have struggled for and fought for for 50 to 60 years. I'm sure that at some point in his life the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) participated in that struggle, in one way or another. He shook his head. Well, he didn't, then.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: I wish somebody would give me one of those buttons.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I'm on the wrong team, eh? It's good for the button business. Do you see how we're promoting employment? We started all that too.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. HOWARD: The real Mr. Speaker is here.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I see I'm being interrupted by one of the directors of Sunmask down at the end of the chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are on Bill 11.

MR. HOWARD: He will have an opportunity. Sunmask will....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I don't care if you've never been a director of Sunmask.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. It's immaterial to this particular debate, in any case. I would ask the member for Skeena to address his remarks to Bill 11.

MR. HOWARD: Incidentally, why does the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) feel so sensitive about the matter and feel that I was talking about him? What led him to that conclusion?

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 11, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: It's the same thing that led him to the conclusion to duck the vote the other night; that's what.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair asks the member to return to Bill 11.

MR. HOWARD: I was doing so well, Mr. Speaker, until just a moment ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, that's debatable, hon. member, but we are on Bill 11.

MR. HOWARD: As I said at the beginning, there is no difficulty in supporting the concept of restraining the expenditure of public funds by government. In fact, two years ago we led the way in the direction. The government is finally catching up with the imagination and foresight we had at that time.

This whole mechanism of Mr. Peck and the Compensation Stabilization Commission, for the two years in which it has been in effect, is going to cost — unnecessarily, I submit — the taxpayers of this province something in the neighbourhood of $1,600,000 or $1,700,000 — some $800,000 last year and another $800,000 this year — to pay the costs of a commissioner when it was most unnecessary. If the government had just had the common sense to understand what forces are at work in collective bargaining, and the common sense to be able to sit down with the particular groups involved in collective bargaining in the public sector, it could have worked out a mechanism for approaching collective bargaining and compensation to public sector employees. It could have approached that in a respectful and decent way and would have had the admiration of many people for attempting to do that. But for the government to have bludgeoned its way into this — founding its position on the concept that only the Social Credit government has the intelligence to be able to deal with these matters and it wants to deal with them by way of authoritarianism and central control and a move towards a fascist type of structure — is wrong; it misses the point entirely.

Many of the difficulties we may be in, in terms of expenditure of public funds by government, were brought about by this government itself. I have pointed out on another occasion that it was this Minister of Finance who over the four years that he has been Minister of Finance has increased the government expenditure of public funds by more than 85 percent. There has been a staggering increase in government expenditures with this minister: 85.1 percent over the four year period, more than 21 percent a year. He did it all by himself. When you go back to the budget of his predecessor, Mr. Evan Wolfe, and compare that budget with the proposed budget today, that is the increase over that period of time.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Frugal, my colleague the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has said.

If it had not been for the carelessness with which this Minister of Finance dealt with taxpayers' money we would not be in the difficulty that we are in today. And now, instead of taking the credit for the mismanagement of this province's finances, as an honest Minister of Finance would do, he wants to lay it off on somebody else. He wants to lay it off by saying we are going to impinge our way, our beliefs and our ideas upon the natural, orderly, sensible process of collective bargaining in the marketplace, and we are going to become the dictator of all provisions within collective agreements between employees of school boards, municipalities, regional districts and everything else and their employers. That is wrong in principle.

I am not under any illusions that the government is going to be swayed from the direction in which it is headed. I am under no illusions that anything that I or anybody else may

[ Page 1943 ]

have to say in this chamber or outside of it will have any rational bearing or influence on the government. It is set in its ways, it is determined to bludgeon its way into the working lives of people in this province, to interfere and intrude in the normal day-to-day activities of local governments. It is prepared and determined to ignore the positive and helpful representations made by groups like the Union of B.C. Municipalities, or the B.C. School Trustees' Association, and have its own way. It is a regrettable state of affairs when that is what we are faced with in this province, and I have no doubt in my mind that when the bill comes for second reading the government members will stand up, to a person, and vote to support it and to intrude into the daily lives of the people of this province. They will vote to support the next step towards fascism. It goes in that direction, step by step by step. The member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) can hold his fist up and say that's leadership, but....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: If you are going to heckle, get back in your own seat to heckle; don't heckle from next door to the minister. The House will think it is the minister who is doing the heckling.

My time is up. I was waiting for that moment with great anticipation. Let's have a round of applause.

MR. REYNOLDS: I hadn't planned to speak in this debate, Mr. Speaker, but after listening to two of the members of the opposition speak in this debate I just had to get up. As I sit here and watch the members of the A team and members of the B team and members of the C team I guess it is time we heard from the working team, the winning team. I see even the socialists can't get their teams straight. They have some of the A players here, and some of the B players, and some of the C players.

Listening to some of the comments of members of the opposition on Bill 11, the Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983, I think it's a.... The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) just in his finish, said we're voting to intrude into persons' lives in this province. I think if he could look at this program and the way it's been running over the past year, he would see that we really haven't intruded into the people's lives in this province. Of all the cases that went before this board.... I think 966 compensation plans went before the board, and 93 percent of them were within the guidelines. I think that would show that overwhelmingly the people of this province not only appreciate the program but also appreciate how well it works.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to put some things on the record, because too often we just read the newspapers in our province and our home area and think that maybe everything is not the way it is and get ourselves confused. Last week I picked up a copy of Barron's, the national business and financial weekly from the United States. Their front-page story was an editorial commentary called "Canadian Sunrise? Political Prospects Up North Look Increasingly Bright." The majority of the totally front-page article on Canada talked about the benefits that Canada will have when Brian Mulroney becomes the Prime Minister of Canada and replaces the Liberal government. But it also talked about British Columbia in this front-page article in Barron's. I would like to quote the article because it fits so well with this bill. It says:

"If British Columbia is blazing the trail, it's one well worth following. Once called Lotusland, the province, though rich in natural resources, has fallen on evil days. Provincial revenues have been hard hit, budget deficits have soared and drastic measures are called for. Premier Bennett has risen to the challenge. Thus, among other things, he is moving to abolish superfluous agencies, notably the so-called Human Rights Commission (which spent tens of thousands of dollars fighting 'men's day' at a country club), scrap rent controls and partly privatize public medical insurance. All told, he is seeking to shift roughly one quarter of the provincial government's employees to more productive work. If his efforts succeed, he may well set an example for the rest of the country. After more than a decade of Liberal misrule, it's time for a change."

A top financial magazine in the United States has analyzed what's happening in Canada, and takes our Premier....

Yet I haven't seen one national TV network in this country, or one of our weekly or daily newspapers in this country, quote the front page of Barron's on what this government is doing in this province or on what is happening in the rest of Canada. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there's food for thought in this article. I would suggest to some of our journalists that they should be reading some of these articles so that they can understand what this government is really doing.

MR. REID: Barron's. That's good.

MR. LEA: Oh, it's one of those left-wing papers. So what?

MR. REID: Is it left-wing?

MR. LEA: Oh, it's a commie front.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, we hear comments from members on the other side. I saw the leader of their federal party on television last night still talking about restraint in British Columbia and how it's ruining the province. I thought he learned his lesson when he was out here campaigning in Mission–Port Moody. He was quoted all during that by-election as saying: "The battle is between ourselves and the Conservative Party of Canada. A vote for the Conservatives is an endorsement of Social Credit legislation." Well, Mr. Speaker, they turned 8,000 votes around in that constituency in that election. If Mr. Broadbent believed what he said then, he should still be believing it now, because socialists never change their minds. We know that he must have been very honest when he made that comment in campaigning and knocking door to door saying to people that a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for the Socreds. Well, we turned 8,000 votes around in that area, and I think it proved that the people of this province appreciate the tough stand that this government is taking. The employees of this province appreciate the tough job that we have as government to govern this province. If they were to sit here and listen....

[5:45]

I've been sitting listening to their speeches so far on this bill — from the two members who are very learned members of the NDP; the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who spent

[ Page 1944 ]

many years in Ottawa, and the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who's been in this Legislature for many years — but I didn't hear one concrete recommendation that this government could act upon. They just stood there and criticized. I would suggest to them that there's more to being in the Legislature than just standing up and criticizing what the government is doing. They should have some positive proposals of their own that the people could at least compare. The last chance they had to compare was on May 5. And they did compare.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: That's why we've got Bill 11 before this Legislature — for the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead). The people of the province won the election, Mr. Member. They won the election because they got good government, and a government that's got the guts to stand up and bring in tough legislation, necessary legislation, and pieces of legislation like the Compensation Stabilization Act, which is going to assist all the people in this province. Certainly the ability to pay is one of the issues in this province and right across Canada, and this government's taking leadership in that area.

I'd like to read the members of this House a letter sent to the Professional Employees' Association. This gets right down to the groups of people that we're talking about. We hear from the NDP that all the workers within the government are against us. Here's a gentleman who has written the Professional Employees' Association, saying:

"Dear Sirs:

"I have just been asked through the Professional Employees' Association, of which I am a reluctant member, to sign a 'petition' put together by the Solidary coalition to protest the government's current legislative program. As the 'petition' does not allow for the signature of those opposed to it, be advised that this is my 'petition' endorsing the government's restraint program. Whether or not the cuts and changes are in the most appropriate places I cannot say, but there is no doubt that the public service is too large and must be reduced.

"This opportunity is taken to protest against the propaganda used in the so-called professional bulletin which the association distributes. In the August 17, 1983, issue, at the outset of the third paragraph, in respect to the Solidarity protest, you say: 'In the meantime we are asking all members to continue your protests' — the inference being that all members are protesting. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the August 29, 1983, issue you state that the '...current Labour Code is viewed as a model on this continent.' Viewed by whom? Unions. As a model of what? Socialism. This is followed with the highly dishonest statement that the present Labour Code '...has provided ten years of unprecedented stability and peace in labour relations in British Columbia.' Sirs, where have you been for the last ten years?

"In the bulletin you exhort all members to contact their local MLA '...to voice their opinions of the current legislative package.' Well, here it is. By copy of this letter I am advising the government that I am in favour of the need for restraint and appropriate cuts in the public service. I also take this opportunity to express my deep concern about the attitude of public service unions. It would better serve the needs of the times if they would look at how best to achieve, in an equitable way, the called-for staff reductions. If the unions continue to ignore the realities of the times, they are doing the people they represent a grave disservice. In any event, as for myself as a professional engineer, I believe that true professionals should not be in a union, as it curtails initiative. By virtue of their training and work ethics, professional engineers, in truth, are part of management. The action of the unions in linking our political climate with that of Poland through the use of the symbol Solidarity is, in the simplest of phrases, an insult to the intelligence of thinking people. The mentality is certainly in keeping with the 'rat' cartoons used by the unions at the time of the strike last year.

"Since joining the public service in 1959, I have found the government to be a good employer — cheques always on time, good working conditions, good fringe benefits, no harassment, etc. It is the spoiled attitudes of many of the people within the system that causes the unrest. Frankly, it is time the Professional Employees' Association dealt with the facts with a little dignity and honesty.

Yours truly,
Charles J. Keenan"

Mr. Speaker, he sent that letter to the Professional Employees' Association, with a copy to the Premier and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) of this province.

The letter of this gentleman and statements within it speak for a great majority of the people working in this province and a great majority of the people working within the public service unions in this province. They respect the ability to pay. They understand when the Minister of Finance talks about the ability to pay. They understand the compensation stabilization program and why it's there. They know we've got a tough job to do. They only have to look at the rest of this country and around the world to see the tough times that we're having right now. Yet the Premier of this province, as quoted in Barron's, has taken the bull by the horns. He is taking some tough stands that are going to benefit this province when the economy starts to turn itself around, when the lumber industries start to thrive again, when they start building houses in the United States and when the mining industries come back — and, Mr. Speaker, we all know they will.

Certainly I have constituents in areas like Squamish, where mining, lumber and pulp are big industries.... The unemployment is high. I remember going there this summer and talking to a number of them, thinking that I might get some flak over some of our legislation. Yet they were the ones to tell me: "Don't back down from the stand you've taken in the Legislature. We've been unemployed for a year or a year and a half in this area. We know it's not the government's fault. We know that the lumber industry is suffering. We know that mining is suffering. We know that when those industries come back, our province will thrive again and we will get jobs again. But for heaven's sake let the civil servants in this province know that they must go along with the rest of us. The government has to have the ability to pay their salaries." I think, Mr. Speaker, that that is the message we have to get across more and more to people.

[ Page 1945 ]

Today I had a letter from a schoolteacher talking about this bill and saying that our percentages were wrong, because in real terms they were only getting about an 8.93 percent increase instead of the 17 percent, in straight dollars — how that was unfair and how we should have more money for this and more money for that. I can't help but wonder where she thinks the government is going to get more money when right now our revenues are down over a billion dollars just in the resource industries. Where do that teacher and other people expect we're going to get that money?

Mr. Speaker, I was also listening to the comments of the member for Nanaimo. He talked about the government advertising program and asked: how much is it, and what is the program? Well, the people I've heard talking most about that program are the members of the NDP. This government has not initiated a program of advertising. The Premier of this province said that if necessary one might come out, and if it did come out it would certainly be well explained — just as all the policies we had during the election campaign were so well explained that the people of this province returned us with a big majority. I say it's a little less than honest to continue to get up in this Legislature and talk about an advertising program that isn't there. The member for Nanaimo knows that, Mr. Speaker.

They get up and they talk and they talk about these types of programs, and they're filling in time. And they wonder why we would bring in closure on a second amendment to a bill. I would imagine that they're even shocked today because they haven't seen the public outcry they thought they might see. I was home this weekend and talked to literally hundreds of people, and they asked why we don't do it on a few more bills, get this stuff through the House and get down to some serious business.

I think closure's an excellent topic to talk on, and I wouldn't mind talking about it a little bit later when I have some more comments to make, but, Mr. Speaker, I would like to adjourn this debate until later today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.