[ Page 2033 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Mr. Gabelmann –– 2033

Mr. Blencoe –– 2035

On the amendment

Mr. Cocke –– 2040

Mrs. Dailly –– 2043

Mr. Macdonald –– 2047

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1983

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, it's a little hard to remember the few words at the beginning of the sentence that was cut off in midstream last night at 1 in the morning.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I said what?

MR. ROSE: Start all over again. Take it from the top.

MR. GABELMANN: No, I wouldn't do that.

As I was saying last night, we're talking about a bill that for me has profound philosophical implications. I was arguing last night that the wage control legislation that's embodied in Bill 11 is not setting the patterns in collective bargaining settlements in this province, but in fact reflects what is the current prevailing wage settlement patterns in the province. In that sense there is, in my view, a fair amount of hypocrisy involved in the legislation.

I was starting last night to argue that wage controls, which this is, simply put, are really an unfair approach to attempting to control an economy because they impact only on one small group in our society. When you have wage controls applying to 300,000 public servants in this province, you have, in fact, on the part of the government an admission that they are more interested in the distribution of wealth than in the creation of wealth. I'm amused often in this Legislature by charges that the New Democrats are concerned only about the redistribution of wealth and pay no heed at all to questions relating to creation of wealth.

When you examine not just Bill 11 but the entire package and the budget, what you find, Mr. Speaker, is a very real and concerted effort to redistribute wealth in what I think is a negative way. None of this package of legislation, and certainly not Bill 11, deals in any way with ways in which we can create new wealth in our society; nor does it — importantly, from my political perspective — deal at all with how you can redistribute what wealth does now exist, in a positive way. What this bill does, obviously, is to ensure that those people, those 4 percent of our population who already earn 20 percent of the income in our society, will continue at least to hold that favoured position and undoubtedly increase their share of the wealth that is now created in our society. Nothing in this bill does anything at all to assist those 20 percent of our society who are earning about 4 percent of the income.

If there is a political and philosophical debate in this province, it's not about restraint, per se; it's about different philosophical approaches to the economy. The government would have us believe that their approach is one that would leave free enterprise unfettered, to go about its business of creating wealth, and in the process of doing that, income and wealth would trickle down to the poorer members of our society. Of course, when you look at the package and the legislation, as often is the case, the real issues are not those that are under debate, but are in fact very different. When I look at this legislation I see it symbolize the entire program of Social Credit, which is to protect that small segment in society who are favoured, who have no controls over their income, who are able to go on holidays abroad annually, who are able to have many of the finer things in life. Ordinary people are being asked, through this legislation, to pay for that. I think that's a fundamental debate that should take place, but in the reality of British Columbia politics today we never debate what's really at issue; we debate what I would call a phony war.

The other philosophical component to the legislation that I began to talk about last night that really concerns me is that if we do have and if we want to have a free market economy — one that does not have controls imposed upon it such as price controls or controls on where or for whom you work — you have to, in a philosophical sense, be consistent. I don't know how free-enterprisers can argue that they should be free to set the price for goods and services but not for labour. Isn't that a commodity in a free market economy as well? Don't free-enterprisers run the risk, and aren't they concerned, that once they have accepted the principles of wage controls, the next very easy step is other controls on society, including price controls and income controls in general? Aren't they concerned that there is a philosophical contradiction in what they say, and, in fact, a great potential that we could develop into the kind of controlled society that they, more than anyone in this province, argue they don't want? I find that philosophical contradiction to be a wee bit strange.

The fundamental words in Bill 11 are contained in section 2. and they are more than just the words "ability to pay"; they are also "paramount consideration." That's a very interesting choice of words — "paramount" in particular. I'm going to talk later about what I think were a number of other words which could have been chosen which would have had a profound difference on the way in which arbitration boards will be forced to operate under this legislation, but I'll get to that in a moment. In fact, because I have less time than I thought I had, I will deal with that at the moment.

There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, and, I suspect, in the minds of those people who have served on arbitration boards in the public sector, that should the term "paramount consideration" ever come up for interpretation in the courts the word "paramount" would be translated as "only."

In the arbitration provisions of the Essential Services Disputes Act there are a variety of directions to arbitration boards as to what they should consider in determining what settlements should be reached: prevailing wage conditions; the overall current compensation levels, in terms of settlements being reached in comparable areas; average consumer price index; the economic climate; and a whole variety of other considerations. But once you introduce into legislation the term "paramount consideration," then any other consideration, such as I've mentioned, becomes not considerable, in the sense that it should not be considered. That is a very real concern to any self-respecting individual who might ever take on the task of chairing or sitting on an arbitration board in public sector wage-settlement decisions.

[10:15]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 2034 ]

We will deal further with this in committee, Mr. Speaker, but I would suggest that instead of "paramount," words such as "weighty consideration," "due consideration," "significant consideration" or words to that effect would go a long way to enabling self-respecting arbitrators to participate in this process. Perhaps a minor implication in the scheme of the things, but one of the realities of this legislation, is that no self-respecting British Columbian who has any experience in arbitration boards would serve on an arbitration board under this section.

Not only is the arbitration board told that they have to limit their concern, in terms of a wage package, only to ability to pay — and I'm going to come to that in a moment — but in another section of the bill they are in effect told that they must act as an agent of the employer. When the employer determines what the level of ability to pay is, and the employer says, "We have only so many dollars," which translates into X percent plus or minus, and the arbitrator is required to treat ability to pay as the paramount concern and is ordered not to take any other issues into consideration, what the arbitrator or arbitration board is put in the position of doing is being a handmaiden for the employer. In this case — not in every case, but in most cases — that's the government itself, under this bill. It's a minor point, perhaps, in the scheme of things, but I really question where the government's going to find anybody who will sit on arbitration boards under this legislation.

I want to deal with a couple of arbitration awards that have been presented in the last few years that deal with the question of ability to pay, and I want to take some time on that question, because in my view the fundamental issue at debate under this bill is the whole concept of ability to pay. It is one that other speakers in this debate have addressed themselves to.

The first thing I'd like to quote from is an arbitration award between the HLRA and the HEU dated earlier this year, 1983. On pages 21 and 23 of that arbitration award, the board, which was chaired by UVic professor Don Munroe, makes, I think, some important comments. I'm just going to extract a couple of those comments. He says:

"However, I should not leave the discussion about 'ability to pay'.... I am asked to accept at face value the budgetary allocations being made by the various hospital administrations. In effect" — and this, remember, was in the health industry in this province — "the budgetary justification, at least as it appears to me, is to say: 'We have to spend so much money on such and such; accordingly we only have this much left for wages.' I think that whether we are in good times or bad, the bargaining unit wage bill is entitled to some greater status than mere residue. If major economies are the order of the day, there is no compelling reason why the wage bill must be singled out as the primary target."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, it's getting just a little noisy in here. I wonder if we could curtail the conversations and show some courtesy to the member now taking his place.

MR. GABELMANN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll repeat the last few words of that; they are very essential in this debate about ability to pay: "....there is no compelling reason why the wage bill must be singled out as the primary target.... I simply observe that it is not immediately obvious to me that all deficits must be forthwith and fully retired at the 'expense' of the bargaining unit."

Earlier in this same document, Don Munroe quotes another expert, so to speak, on labour relations, arbitrations and various questions under consideration in this bill: a guy named Paul Weiler, who most of us in this House know; a well-known neutral.

Paul Weiler, in a paper entitled "Collective Bargaining in the Public Sector," dated June 1978, goes on at some length. While it's lengthy, I do want to read into the record some extracts from that paper, because it deals in a very essential way with some of the questions under debate at the moment. The essential debate is whether it is necessary, proper or appropriate to have wage controls in the public sector when there are no controls not only on other workers in society but on all other facets of society.

"Let's re-examine the logic of the argument that there is a sharp line between private and public sector unionism, that only the former is subject to the discipline of the market, and that the tendency of free collective bargaining to produce highly uneconomical settlements for government employees requires some form of artificial legal restraints.

"I suppose the first point is that insofar as the claim is made that public sector unionism is not subject to the economic discipline of a pure, competitive market, there is nothing unique about that fact. One can easily find examples of powerful trade unions in the private sector able to extract large wage increases from private employers, who are able to pass the increased costs along to their customers, without either the employer or the union having to worry too much about their economic positions in protected local markets. The cost of labour in certain unions may be a tiny proportion of the overall sales volume of the employer — for example, the meat cutters in the food industry; the employers in question may all sell their services in a regulated, legal market — for example, the teamsters in the transportation industry; or the employees may enjoy almost total protection from the introduction of any labour-saving technology — for example, the typographers in the newspaper industry.

"Historically it has been the rich settlements in such 'pass-it-on' industries as food, trucking and construction which have set troublesome targets for employers in our key forest and mining industries, which must compete in international markets. Putting it another way, it is hard to think of any pertinent reason why one should want to treat collective bargaining at B.C. Hydro radically different from B.C. Telephone, simply because one is a publicly owned Crown corporation and the other is privately owned.

"Not only is it true that many parts of the private sector can be immune from the discipline of market forces. At the same time, public sector bargaining is considerably more exposed to economic restraints than one might suppose" — this is an important point, Mr. Speaker — "although these may operate in a different and perhaps more subtle fashion because of the character of the government as an employer. But obviously the point is true in the case of the employees. They feel precisely the same impact from

[ Page 2035 ]

strike action as do their private counterparts. They lose their regular income and must make do on strike pay. In the normal course of events this tends to dampen the expectations of employees and make them more open to compromise settlements.

"It is apparent, as we have grown used to the idea of public sector unionism, that after we have experienced the actual impact of the loss of supposedly essential services, we have realized that the end of the world has not arrived when government employees go out on strike. We can make do without bus service or garbage collection, for example, and the really sharp edge is taken off strikes by public safety employees, such as hospital workers, through designation by the labour board of crucial life-preserving services.

"I do not mean to deny that life is made more uncomfortable for us. These work stoppages should be avoided if possible and ended as quickly as they can. But my point is that the people who are immediately hurt by such a strike are the striking employees. The fact of life has sunk in that if they decide to go on strike rather than take their employer's last offer, they may be without their paycheques for quite a while. That prospect tends to generate more reasonable appraisals of that last offer.

"Most important, at the very same time that this shift in the balance of power has been taking place, public managers are themselves feeling much greater pressure to resist any exorbitant wage demands. Part of that concern is political. The media have done a pretty thorough job of consciousness-raising about the cost of government collective agreements. But there are powerful economic explanations as well.

"First of all, the wage bill makes up by far the largest share of the cost of many government services, such as hospitalization or education. The period of rapid natural growth in government revenues to pay for increases in these costs is now definitely ended. It is a myth to think that the public managers can unilaterally and easily raise their rates to pay for rich contract settlements. There is a popular outcry at the prospect of any sharp increase in Hydro charges, tuition fees, municipal mill rates. At the same time there is a more professional style in government negotiation, which makes everyone aware of those facts of life — one which has been helped a great deal by the spread of the idea of the total compensation package through the anti-inflation program," otherwise known as the AIB.

"Greater attention is now being paid to cost-saving measures, whether dropping traditional frills on the ferry service, for example, or substituting laboursaving equipment, as in the post office. Another myth that is being exploded is that public employees are immune from layoffs, as school board unions have learned from the recent decline of school enrolment.

"All in all, it is obvious that both public employers and their unions are a lot more sensitive to the impact of their contract settlement, and the economic equation they are facing is very different from what I called the 'go-go years.'"

[10:30]

I realize that's a lengthy extract. While I don't entirely subscribe to every word that Weiler writes in arguing that the normal course of collective bargaining will lead to settlements that are within reasonable frameworks, I think he makes the argument as well as I've seen it made.

Another arbitration award recently — I won't quote so long from this one — relates to what I think is one of the most distressing examples of the unfairness that has been created by the existing legislation: that is, the Zion Park Manor case involving the B.C. Nurses' Union. A group of employees was organized — I don't remember the exact rates, but they had been earning in the $6 range. They were expecting to go to the prevailing rate in the industry, which was in the $11 or $12 range. Ed Peck said: "No, you have to stay at your $6 range. "Even though the prevailing rate in that particular industry was almost double what they were getting, they were not allowed to receive what seems to me a logical and proper increase.

I'm going to quote very briefly from another award; the arbitrator chairman in this case is lawyer David Vickers:

"The 'ability-to-pay' argument is not new to interest arbitration in the health field. That is so because we are dealing with a public service which is regulated in all respects. Income is directly controlled by the decisions of government. For example, in this case the employer, a non-profit society, is funded by the provincial government — the Ministry of Health, long-term care — and by a user fee which itself is regulated by the provincial government. While its income is entirely dependent upon the decisions of government, so too are its operations. Staff levels, food, including quality and type of menu, the type of licence, and consequently the level of care — all these factors are controlled by the Ministry of Health. Such a policy is required in the interests of maintaining high-quality standards of health care throughout the province.

"The practical question posed by this type of case is: who will subsidize this essential public service? Will the employer be forced to borrow and go into further debt? Will the employer be forced to close its doors? Will the employees continue to receive wages which are substantially lower than comparable wages in the industry? Government policies dictate a level of spending; government policies dictate the funds available to meet expenditures. It is in all respects an essential public service delivered by a private organization."

The question there is obvious: who subsidizes the operation?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Who was that?

MR. GABELMANN: This was David Vickers in an arbitration award to Zion Park Manor — the B.C. Nurses' Union.

The essential question posed by the arbitration in this incident, and the central question that's been posed in the courts over this, is: who will subsidize the particular program?

I see the red light, Mr. Speaker. I hope I get a chance later to continue these remarks.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on this particular bill this morning in terms of the impact on this particular riding, this particular constituency.

[ Page 2036 ]

As the government knows, this riding has thousands of loyal public servants who have dedicated many, many years to the provincial public service — not only my constituents but the constituents of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) and the Finance minister (Hon. Mr. Curtis). First of all, I want to remind those two MLAs, those two members of cabinet, that during the election they did not tell their constituents, many of whom are public servants, of their intentions. Many of those constituents believed their two Socred MLAs had no intention of pursuing the course that we have before us today in terms of the various pieces of legislation that impact directly on the public service. In our estimation — certainly in mine — those two Socred MLAs and cabinet ministers retained office — the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has decided to leave — under false pretences.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That will have to be withdrawn.

MR. BLENCOE: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

In my estimation, those two Socred MLAs did not relate to their electorate their full intentions when they would achieve office; indeed, on occasions there were various denials by the two local Socred MLAs that they had any intentions of mass firings or suspension of collective bargaining rights or seniority in the public service. Consequently, they will of course have to face their electorates when the time comes, but it's most unfortunate in this particular area, where we do have thousands of thousands of public servants who have given many years of loyal service. I know the public service has become the popular whipping boy — or person — for this government. It appears it is very popular to turn British Columbians against the public service for political reasons: to create fear in the public service and to create mistrust verging on a high dislike for somebody who works in the public service. Working in the public service is an honourable profession that goes back hundreds and hundreds of years: serving your community and your province or country in a diligent and forthright manner. Sure, like any institution there are those who perhaps don't do the best job or are not the most productive, and there are ways to try to rectify that. In a civilized society there are normal and civilized ways to rectify that particular problem.

Nobody in this riding or anywhere else in the province argues with the fact that government today must show fiscal responsibility. Nobody argues with that at all. I have, over the last few months, reiterated my position and the position of local government in terms of responsibility in fiscal matters. Everybody believes, as a citizen of British Columbia and of Canada, that they have a responsibility to ensure that economic recovery is around the corner, and to achieve that we all have to participate in the solutions. Nobody argues with that. In modern society we must clearly look to ensure that the end justifies the means in terms of reflecting a civilized approach to trying to bring about solutions. The means by which this government has decided to attack the public service in this province.... And I'm not just talking, obviously, about public servants directly employed by the provincial government, but about other public servants like firemen or policemen, who are deeply concerned about the implications of various pieces of legislation. You must look at the means you employ to carry out your ends. Over the last few weeks, and certainly over the last few days, there is no question that the people of British Columbia have been very critical of the means employed by this government.

Let me reflect on my experience in local government, given the constraints or restraints that we faced in a financial matter. For two years I was chairman of finance in the most difficult time faced by the City of Victoria since the Depression. But there was a distinct difference in how we handled that problem vis-a-vis our staff and our budget. It was my policy, on the council that I worked with, to share the difficulties we had with dollars, to share the difficulties we had in terms of the restraints being imposed upon us by outside sources, and by internal ones as well, and to collectively reach some solutions. I believe that public servants are first Canadians and British Columbians, and they feel they have a responsibility to participate in the solutions. But they must be given the opportunity to participate collectively in a humane and compassionate way that understands their problems, understands that they have families and mortgages and children to feed and take care of. Where there is a will there's a way. Where there is a will to try to resolve problems in terms of financial constraints, you can find ways by meeting together, opening your books — that's what we did in the city of Victoria, and I'll reflect a bit more on that — showing 1,000 employees or their representatives in the city of Victoria the various sides of the ledger. Nothing hidden at all. We showed them the revenue that was coming in and the current expenditures, based on a few years ago, and that those two sides did not balance.

It was my policy — and, I believe, the policy of our party — to pull all management and labour together to try to find common direction and consensus on the problems. During the election the Leader of the Opposition talked about collective management and labour; he talked to experts on various economic structures, and about getting together and showing labour and all the vested-interest parties that these are the problems, these are the constraints, and asked what we can do collectively to resolve our problems.

AN MON. MEMBER: Get rid of the restraint program.

MR. BLENCOE: We did not say: "Get rid of the restraint program." What we said was that the methods that they were utilizing were not conducive to long-term solutions. What we said was that if you're really going to resolve the problems, you have to consult with those who are going to be directly affected by your decisions: those public servants, their children, their families and extended families. What we said was that to try to bring about economic recovery in this province, with the public service as a part of that economic recovery, we were going to enter into a new course of action in resolving problems in labour-management situations in this province: open consultation and consensus, deliberation and an attempt to achieve solutions that everyone understood and agreed upon.

The labour unions, the public service of this province, were prepared to enter into those negotiations. They were prepared to see that the dollars weren't there and to find ways in which they could solve the problems of the provincial financial constraints. We have a government that has decided to abandon consultation and to take a 2-by-4, to suspend basic rights in the bargaining process, to suspend labour processes that have been accepted by all sides of the political spectrum. In a civilized society, you have to have those two sides working together to resolve long-term problems. If you don't do that, you may gain short-term political Brownie points, but the mistrust, the morale and the prospects for

[ Page 2037 ]

economic recovery dwindle dramatically, because unless you discuss with the workers of this province a collective approach to solutions — because it is the workers of this province that will bring about recovery, with their labour, their intensity, their loyalty, their hard work.... It's their labour and support for British Columbia and Canada that will bring about economic recovery in this province and in this country.

What has happened is that this government has failed to recognize the importance of labour in economic recovery. I would suggest....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: When you're trying to speak common sense to certain members across the way, they don't want to listen. It's most unfortunate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak on the bill then.

[10:45]

MR. BLENCOE: I am speaking on the bill. I am speaking to the principle that what has to happen in a civilized society for economic recovery is consensus and a common action that both management and labour understand and agree upon; otherwise, you will not achieve economic recovery. You will only achieve confrontation, mistrust and hatred for a long, long time. You will never mend those wounds in terms of achieving economic recovery. The public service is an integral part of this province, yet there has been a determined effort on the part of this government to isolate them from the decision-making and to take away their ability to participate in the difficult decisions that we have to make. You have taken a club and threatened 250,000 public servants in this province. You have fired people that have served, say, in the human rights branch, without any consideration for them or their families or their years of service.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many years?

MR. BLENCOE: In the human rights branch, Mr. Member, there are members who have worked for years, and they turned up to a locked office.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, I understand the member speaking is supposed to address the Chair. The silly little man from Victoria is carrying on a constant dialogue across the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Withdraw that remark.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Stand and withdraw it, please.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I did before I sat down. The member for Victoria is carrying on a little dialogue across the floor rather than addressing the Chair...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Your point of order is well taken.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: ...and by so doing he is not making very much sense in his discussion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will address the Chair and continue.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can always tell when the government doesn't want to hear things. When there is some sense being spoken on this side, they get up and interject and are extremely rude, particularly that Minister of Forests, who consistently will not listen to some sense and sanity in this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That remark will be withdrawn as well.

MR. BLENCOE: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. But we need sanity in this province. We don't need lunatics running around declaring war on loyal public servants who are prepared to participate in recovery and work with the government. Mr. Speaker, this government had ways and methods by which it could achieve this end through the existing processes. But what it has decided to do is make the public service a political pawn, because they know that they have created an image in the eyes of the public that people in the public service are lazy and don't do a job.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, yes. That's what you've created, and you have created fear in the public service. I know it particularly — and this is the next theme I want to touch upon — in this riding, and I know many people that have talked to me who are intelligent, dedicated, hard-working, and who provide expertise to this government as public servants are now looking elsewhere for jobs. What's going to happen is you're going to lose the best people in your public service — the people who keep this province running, in terms of the public service and the essential services that we maintain. They're going to go elsewhere, Mr. Speaker. You're going to lose that knowledge because you have scared those people, because they do not feel that they have any security whatsoever in their jobs.

There is a vindictiveness about this government towards the public service. I know many of them who now are trying to renegotiate their mortgages or are trying to get some credit, and they cannot get it, because this government has undermined their position totally. You have sent shock waves through the public service — not only the provincial public service but also in municipalities — by your actions. That is no way to resolve the problems of this province.

Your means are dictatorial. They do not reflect a modern society, in terms of trying to work out problems with people.

MR. MOWAT: You're spreading fear, that's what you're doing.

MR. BLENCOE: You've spread the fear already, Mr. Member We don't have to do that.

What concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is that the best people in the public service, who are prepared to aid this government in trying to resolve their recovery problems and the economic difficulties we have, are looking for other jobs.

[ Page 2038 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm not going to name names with you I won't name names.

MR. COCKE: You'll put them on a hit list.

MR. BLENCOE: No way would I name names in front of you, Mr. Member. We know what you're like. We know the lists you keep.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, the little fellow from Victoria continues to chatter across the floor rather than to address the issue and the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I'll ask the member to address the Chair, and I'll ask the Minister of Forests to withdraw the remark — the personal reference. Please withdraw. I heard a personal reference which I found unparliamentary. The minister will withdraw.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, if there was any unparliamentary remark, Mr. Speaker, of course I withdraw, but in the meantime, would that member address the Chair...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The member for Rossland-Trail....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: ...and keep his remarks appropriate to the matter under debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

The member for Rossland-Trail.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Victoria is being constantly interrupted by intermittent caterwauling from the government benches. I think he would have, speaking to the Minister of Forests' point of order, a much greater ease in addressing the Chair, and in addressing the bill, if he were not being constantly interrupted.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the government believes it has embarked upon a recovery program by saying to the private sector that it has to carry the ball. I have talked to many small business people over the last few months — and large business people in this particular riding — who traditionally, I would say, would support the Social Credit government. In many respects there is no question, like we all do, they believe in fiscal responsibility. Yet what deeply concerns them is the current course of action in terms of the impact on business in this province and certainly in this riding that I know best.

What's happened is that those thousands and thousands of public servants, who are major contributors to the consumer society in their spending habits, have stopped spending. They are no longer participating in that small business sector that you say you support, because you have scared them to death. They no longer trust this government. What they are saying is that by their course of action they have created such fear in the public service, not only provincially but also municipally, that their small businesses — certainly in this region, I know — are jeopardized. Many with whom I have talked say they're back to two or three years ago, when the recession was the hardest. This government must assure small businesses and the public servants that they are not out on a witch-hunt, that the public servant does have a degree of security in his job. Indeed they are human beings and are entitled to some protection under various labour codes and collective bargaining processes, and some assurance that they will have a job tomorrow; otherwise, the impact on the morale of the public service.... Productivity will be nil. The morale in the public service — of even those who support this government — is virtually nil.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The means by which this government has embarked upon its programs are not conducive to a successful economic recovery program. I urge this government to embark on a different course, to consult with those who are being threatened and jeopardized, and to say to the leaders in labour and management: "How can we collectively resolve our problems?" That's what we talked about as a party. That's what we believe in. The Minister of Forests can laugh and chew his gum in here....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Instead of sitting in here, it's too bad that the Minister of Forests doesn't go out on the street and stop the absolutely shocking things that are happening in the forest industry — to the large companies like MacMillan Bloedel — and get on with his job, instead of heckling those who are trying to bring some sanity back into this government. Rethink your policies instead of declaring war on so many British Columbians.

The whole purpose of politics is to enhance the quality of life. That's what government is all about; that's your objective. You have abandoned that objective. What is the value of economic development if the entire population does not reap the benefits? Civilized societies and jurisdictions have accepted that basic premise. But this government has decided to go back to the old ways of creating massive pools of cheap labour, unorganized labour, so profits can be greater. Yet there are large sectors of the province who are not benefiting by that economic development.

AN HON. MEMBER: Profit is a dirty word.

MR. BLENCOE: No, it's not a dirty word, Mr. Minister.

You have a tool with which you can now create huge pools of cheap labour; on the backs of that labour you are going to create your economic recovery. It won't work; it's bound to fail, and even the economists who traditionally support you are saying so. Even the most respected financial houses in North America don't trust this government's financial operations any more. They've downgraded your credit rating, because they know that this government has led the people of the province down the economic garden path.

[11:00]

In order to turn attention away from your lack of action to diversify the economy on behalf of all British Columbians and to ensure full employment for British Columbians, you have decided to attack certain sectors of the province, particularly the one which we're talking about in Bill 11 — the public service. To turn attention away from long-term solutions that will ensure that British Columbia has a strong economic future, instead of making war on certain sectors of

[ Page 2039 ]

our province, this government should be participating with those sectors which have the ability to help this government ensure that economic recovery is achieved. The public service is one of those sectors in which, if you meet and devise a collective strategy, you will be successful. But you have decided that that large component of British Columbian society must be shoved aside and treated as second- and third-class citizens in your attempt to hold on to power at all costs and to devise means that are uncivilized, undemocratic and not part of a progressive society at all. British Columbians are turning against your means, because they are seeing that the course of action that you have decided to go upon is not in the long-term interests of British Columbians.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that that minister got hit by a tree lately. Maybe you can get hold of him and see if you can restore some sanity to that minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Are you chipping away at our Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland)?

MR. BLENCOE: That's right. He lost his chips a long time ago, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I take offence at what the member says when he speaks about restoring sanity. The implication was that that minister has lost his sanity and I would ask him to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for bringing that to my attention. The hon. member heard the complaint from the minister....

MR. BLENCOE: Perhaps he should lodge an official complaint somewhere else, Mr. Speaker. I'm just trying to bring some checks and balances to that minister as I try and speak to this government and ask them to rethink their policies.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I suppose there could be an imputation as to the....

MR. BLENCOE: If the minister has been offended by "chips" and "sanity," as I suppose by the fact that he stood up so quickly to protest, then I shall withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon. member. Hon. minister, perhaps we could let the hon. member proceed with his speech.

MR. BLENCOE: You're an honourable gentleman, Mr. Speaker. You're one of the few honourable gentlemen and ladies on that side. Thank you very much for that protection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In his haste to attempt to impress the chamber, the new member for Victoria has suggested that some members of this House are not honourable.

I think it is understood, is it not, by most who have served here that all members are honourable. I would ask the member to withdraw.

MR. BLENCOE: You, too, Mr. Minister, protest too much.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member finds it impossible to simply be gentlemanly in this chamber. In withdrawing he makes a further insulting remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the minister does have a point in this particular instance, and I would ask you, as a gentleman, to withdraw the ungentlemanly remark about the other gentlemen in the House.

MR. BLENCOE: There's no question, Mr. Speaker, that some are more honourable than others. I withdraw my remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now if we could get on with Bill 11, we would really be accomplishing something.

MR. BLENCOE: We certainly would, Mr. Speaker.

I want to reflect on the legal aspects of what this government is doing in this piece of legislation. I had the privilege of attending the UBCM recently, and one of the sessions was on the legal ramifications of the government's actions in the labour area. There was no question that the lawyers advising those 600 elected officials clearly stated....

AN HON. MEMBER: Community leaders.

MR. BLENCOE: Community leaders. Thank you, very honourable member.

Community leaders from across this province were told quite clearly that much of the legislation that you have introduced will be challenged in the courts, and the chance of your legislation standing up in the courts — because they will determine the fairness, the rightness and the legality and constitutionality of your actions.... They said that it's unlikely the courts will support your actions. I contend that this government is well aware of that. I contend that they are flaunting the law for political gain. They know very well that the things that they are doing in many respects are unacceptable and close to illegal and violate some basic principles that we have accepted in Canada for a long, long time. They know that they are making political Brownie points by attacking public servants who cannot respond to them, because if they do they know what happens to them. We saw what happened to that Human Resources worker up in the interior. Others, I'm sure, are going to be on the list. I would urge this government to consider the legalities of what it is doing. The restraint that they are trying to introduce is just a sham, because the law cases that will be introduced into the courts will cost the taxpayers of British Columbia potentially millions and millions of dollars, and they know that, Mr. Speaker. They know they are on shaky legal ground, but because they are determined to make political Brownie points by creating fear and turning British Columbians against British Columbians, they have decided to continue their course of action in the face of all the legal advice and opinion that much of their action will be condemned as illegal and a basic violation of rights that all Canadians have accepted for a long time.

[ Page 2040 ]

One of the things that most people expect, when you introduce a course of action that is based on fiscal responsibility and consequently the equation equals savings, is some indication of what your savings will be. The Finance minister has been asked over and over again, as has the Premier: "Table your savings. Where is the money to be saved?" They can't do it, because they know that it's not restraint any more; it's a political mission in this province to remove some of the most humane and compassionate essential services and public servants who work in those areas for political ends. Attacking that fundamental part of a civilized society can only reflect badly on a government that is bent no longer on a fiscally responsible course but on a political game that is dangerous to the future of this province and to the citizens of this province.

I urge the government once again to enter into some sane discussion with themselves for a start — with their cabinet colleagues — and with the citizens of British Columbia who are in a position to help you resolve the economic problems of this province?

I ask the government once again to table, today, the savings from their program. We've asked them for months but we know they can't do it. Let's see if they've got it together yet to show the people of British Columbia where they are saving these dollars, or is it just a course of action that they have decided to take on certain essential services that make life in British Columbia tolerable for many and make many people feel a part of this vital and important province.

MR. MOWAT: Why don't we go and have a talk with some of these people?

MR. BLENCOE: They'll talk to you. They would talk to this government if they felt they could trust this government. They would indeed.

There has been a very important analysis put together of this government's "B.C. spirit" — this package the government has put forward. A learned professor at the University of Victoria in the school of public administration — Professor Dobell — has written a paper which I think clearly indicates that this — government is on a suicide mission in terms of resolving the long-term problems in this province. This man has no political axe to bear. But I urge this government to read this particular document because I think it will give the government some insight that they are on the wrong course, that they don't understand what they are doing and they don't understand that the strife and the chaos they are going to bring about in British Columbia in the long term will be totally out of their control and all citizens will be harmed in that. I urge this government to reconsider that public servants have a right to be considered as first-class citizens and not second- and third-class citizens. I urge them to enter into meaningful discussion with all sectors of this province to find some common solutions and common resolutions to our problems and work together as brothers and sisters in getting this province back on the road. Economic recovery together, working together, is possible. But by declaring war in so many sectors, it cannot be done. In the interests of giving the government the opportunity to do that, I would like to move the following amendment.

I move that the motion by amended by leaving out the word "now" and adding the words "on this day...

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: ...six months hence."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair finds this amendment in order, and we will proceed with the debate. The Chair recognizes the member for New Westminster.

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE: I noted some rather loud and intolerant tones from the back bench over there on the government side.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let's get on debating this hoist to Bill 11, and the Chair would suggest right here and now that we have had a lot of debate on Bill 11 to this point in time and that the Chair will insist that all the debate on the hoist be to the point and relevant to the hoist motion.

[11:15]

MR. COCKE: I would hope at the same time that the relevancy goes both ways. It was interesting to me that the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, indicated around the clock and all the rest of it. That's precisely what we're here for. The whole question of our silliness.... Last night, when I listened to that minister's debate on the main motion was when I talked to the rest of my colleagues and said that it was absolutely essential that a hoist motion be put forward. Let me tell you the reason. That minister said that this piece of legislation, Bill 11, was the cornerstone of the government's policy. Now the cornerstone of the government's policy means that if this bill is required to implement all of the programs that they are putting forward — programs that speak for themselves, programs that have been criticized across this province from every corner of B.C. and from all parts of the political spectrum.... Conservatives, progressive people and people somewhere in the middle are all saying: "What are they doing?"

This cornerstone is one that was developed when the first minister gave his indication in February of 1982 of exactly where this government was going to go in its "restraint" program. At that time there was a tremendous amount of support for the way that this province was to go, but that support is contained within that word "restraint." We do not see the actual implementation of restraint with this program. What we see is government control. A government that states on one hand that they wish to keep out of people's lives, and on the other hand dictates our every move, does not make sense as far as I and my colleagues are concerned. We have before us something that is totally unnecessary if there was elicited in this province good feelings from public servants to government, employees to employers, and between people of all walks of life. There has not been a spirit of cooperativeness in B.C., because once the government throws down the gauntlet — as they do in this bill — there is nothing more that people can do besides show their lack of trust in this government's lack of judgment. What we need to have here today, and what practically every thinking person is calling for in B.C., is a state of cooperation and communication and an opportunity for negotiation, where people can sit down, put

[ Page 2041 ]

forward their ideas and at least have an opportunity to be heard. This is what the hoist will do. It will afford the government an opportunity to take out what legislation they have, particularly this piece of legislation, and have it properly canvassed.

It was brought in with absolutely no consultation. Nobody knew that this piece of legislation would be brought forward. The reason they didn't know it was because of the fact that the government, in the person of the Finance minister and the Premier, when the original Compensation Stabilization Act was brought in, indicated that it would virtually be over by now. They gave that undertaking. Then surprise, surprise, we have this before us.

On July 7, when most of the legislation that we're now debating came, there was a tremendous surprise — not a surprise that the government would be keeping their commitment. There's no question that they should. They made certain commitments during the election campaign. We're not arguing that they should not be keeping those commitments. But what we have before us is legislation going well beyond the commitments made. There are ways other than the highpowered route of legislation that governments can keep their commitments.

Yesterday I listened with tremendous interest to the member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton), who made a lot of sense. I didn't agree politically with some of his observations or conclusions. At the same time, he showed that he had thought things out from his own perspective; I contend that the government has not thought things out.

They have placed us in a state of siege in B.C. Think about it. Think about the hoist while you're thinking about that. Have you ever seen, Mr. Speaker, the province in such chaos, in terms of people's trust of one another, in terms of their trust of government — yes, and in terms of their trust of the opposition? We have jeopardized this province by virtue of legislation — such as Bill 11 — that has been put forward for no other reason that I can imagine than to place us in a state of siege and confrontation. That's no joke.

These are very serious times. There's a government in Ottawa that I can't stand. Many of the members across the way talk about bedfellows, but that's where they came from — the Liberal Party. In any event, I was listening to Herb Gray this morning, president of the Treasury Board, and when he was asked what he was going to do about furthering the six-and-five, his answer was that the inflation rate has gone down from way into the double-digits to 5.6 or 5.7 percent inflation, and it was time to get back to proper negotiations. I agree with that.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we lose sight of is the fact that we live in a free society — or contend that we live in a free society. A free society means that people have an opportunity to put their cause forward. The government continually use, as their excuse for this legislation that should be hoisted, the fact that workers in the private sector are far more jeopardized than workers in the public sector. They say it, but they don't put forward any evidence stating that.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, standing order 43 reads:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to the conduct of a member, who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech...."

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you invoke that rule. This member is repeating, time and time again, the same points that have been made by other members time and time again in this House. I certainly think it is time we invoked standing order 43.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, the Chair is not prepared to invoke that standing order at this particular time. The member is certainly striving to be relevant, and he is well aware of the requirement for relevancy. In a debate such as this I suppose there's bound to be some repetition, but I would just bring to the hon. member's attention the requirement for not being repetitious, and perhaps he would proceed on that basis.

MR. COCKE: I thank you for your judgment, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Forests for some reason or another does not like to listen to the pleas of the opposition. I would just like to remind the....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I would like it if those two rookies had been here in 1972 to 1975, when we really listened to filibusters which were not justified. So don't give me that. We listened hour after hour, without bringing in people night after night. In any event, if you wish to do so, continue with your bullying tactics. I for one have to do the job that I have to do as I see it.

I want to suggest very strongly that the reason we move hoist is to give a government an opportunity to reassess what they're doing. If one has to make that argument, either over and over or though parallel arguments, I believe one is justified. This bill was dubbed the cornerstone of their program. If it is that important to them, surely it must be important to us, who don't happen to agree with this particular philosophy. I don't think anybody in our society is absolutely right or, for that matter, absolutely wrong. But I believe the only way to have a meeting of minds is to have proper discourse to the extent that we know how one another feels, and I don't mean particularly across this floor.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Twenty-two hours! We know how you feel — negative.

MR. COCKE: The most negative legislation I've seen since I came here is the legislation we're now discussing, and as negative a piece of legislation as this. It should be hoisted just for that one reason, and that one reason only.

Here we are in western Canada striving for an economic return, for at least some kind of economic renewal, and they use, as one of their implements for that, further economic depression. Until such time as there's trust back in our system, I don't think we're going to have any kind of economic recovery. The trust has to come, not between the government and the opposition, but between the employer and the employee, between government and the public service, and all the different constituent parts of our society. It isn't here, and the reason it isn't is because of the confrontation. What better means could be served than to have the government show their intention to listen, for a change, by hoisting this bill, giving it six months to be discussed outside of this chamber?

[ Page 2042 ]

Then if they feel it should be enacted, come back and we'll be as cooperative as can be.

[11:30]

Is it any great surprise that the opposition would take the position that we have in asking for hoist? We spoke yesterday, we spoke into the night, and we gave our reasons for not supporting the bill. Those reasons are as valid today in the daylight as they were last night in the darkness, and those reasons are shared. Thoughtful editorials are calling for the government to be more cooperative, less unilateral in their way of doing business; but we see absolutely no backing off whatsoever. Very seldom have the people in this province been confronted by such a mass of legislation that runs counter to their needs.

So when we are told that this act is the cornerstone, we have to treat it as such and really ask the back-benchers to support the motion, or ask the government to let the bill sit on the order paper in order to give it an opportunity to be discussed. We don't even have to have a vote on this particular resolution. If the government will give an undertaking that they will have this bill discussed, as it should be, have it thoroughly canvassed by somebody other than the Fraser Institute, we would be quite happy to give it that opportunity. But, Mr. Speaker, how can we do anything at this point but ask for support for our motion to hoist?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The bill needs to be hoisted for another reason: it's another piece of enabling legislation. Enabling legislation provides the government with regulatory powers to make the major decisions, not here on the floor of the Legislature, but behind those closed cabinet doors, where there may or may not be debate; but nobody's going to know about it if there is. When cabinet adjourns and comes out to make their announcements through regulation, the decision is made and there is one voice stating that decision. Even though there may have been division — and I'm quite sure there have been times in that cabinet when there has been some division — those regulations are made and we as a society live with them. This is another piece of legislation that provides that regulatory power to government which really goes beyond the needs of government. If they are really and truly serious about trying to create goodwill....

I don't think you have to be soft and put people in a cocoon, treat them as gently as butterflies in order to get by, but I do think we as a society have to treat one another as equals. There is no evidence in this bill that people are being treated as equals. The evidence, as a matter of fact, is to the contrary. Has the government once got up and said what this bill will do in order to restore our economy? Where is their economic recovery in this piece of legislation? Where is it?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's said over and over again.

MR. COCKE: It's been said over and over again, the minister says, and yet we've not heard it, and we've listened to every line. No, Mr. Speaker, this bill does what I suggest. It gives the government more power, more muscle than they've had, and they will continue to increase that power.

Mr. Speaker, stabilization does not come through legislation such as this. That's why we're calling for it to be hoisted. Stabilization comes in a society where there's trust, and there is no trust. This morning, when the president of the federal Treasury Board announced that they're backing away from this direction, I'll bet there was better feeling throughout the entire public sector, and beyond that into the private sector. The reason is that people appreciate an opportunity to participate. Not only do they appreciate it; it should be their absolute right.

I've heard discussions about democracy, how important it is and so on, from the other side. Implicit in democracy is people's right to participate in their own future, in the decisions around their careers, and to take some responsibility for the restraint that is necessary. The companion legislation.... Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you must agree that Bills 2, 3 and 11 are not only first cousins, they are a package. Put together, those demand a hoist. If given this authority for any length of time.... And there's no time limit here. The time that was set before — not in legislation, but certainly a promise by both the Premier and the Minister of Finance at the time of the original Compensation Stabilization Act — has now been ignored. Now we've come with a bill that has no time limit whatsoever. That alone, for this kind of document and statute — should it become a statute — is enough in and of itself to demand that it be discussed, to demand that it be given an opportunity to be assessed not just by legislators, but by everybody in the province.

There's a group out there called Solidarity. They represent all walks of life, as I can see it. Naturally they say: "Pull this bill. Give us an opportunity for input." But beyond them, beyond the BCGEU, there is UBCM. What are they calling for? A reassessment of this, along with the companion pieces. They think, as I do, that this legislation will wreak havoc, not directly, but indirectly. Directly, in that you may have problems with workers, but beyond that it creates a lack of trust and the kind of chaos that we cannot afford.

I say that the government would be showing a tremendous amount of good faith if they would get up.... I don't expect them to vote for our hoist motion, but I do expect to hear the Premier or the Minister of Finance say: "Okay, let's review this legislation."

HON. MR. BRUMMET: All 27 bills?

MR. COCKE: Don't talk about 27 bills, Mr. Minister of the Environment; I did not say 27. Look, you've already had nine bills proclaimed; what are you talking about? You're creating a mirage. The fact of the matter is that I talked about three bills that are part of a package.

Were I sitting in his position, I'd be a bit nervous too, participating in the kind of government work that creates the sort of chaotic situation that we find in B.C.

When considering hoist, I ask these ministers and those back-benchers kindly to consult for a change. Pick up the telephone when it rings, instead of having your secretary say you're out and can't consult. Meet delegations when they come, instead of saying: "We're too busy sitting day and night in this Legislature." Listen to what people are saying about this "cornerstone" of your legislation. And it is the cornerstone. You have Bill 2, Bill 3 and this one as the cornerstone in this particular area. Ask people. Ask industrialists: "How do you get by?" We see right now a bit of foment between the IWA and forest industrial relations. We all know that posturing takes place. Isn't it nice that we live in a society where posturing can take place? Isn't it marvellous that we're living in a society that treats one person as well as another person, that no matter where you happen to be,

[ Page 2043 ]

whether you're on the green chain or on the saw, you are equal in terms of your ability to put your voice forward? Isn't that a great society, and isn't that what we should be striving for with public servants?

I suggest that that would be the best and greatest step that this government could make, a step saying: "Okay, I tell you what we're going to do. We're going to listen."

[11:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Just what I ask.

MR. COCKE: Not what I ask, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Your idea of cooperation....

MR. COCKE: My idea of cooperation, since the minister asks the question, is an open-door policy where one listens to every opinion and then comes down with a conclusion, not where one goes to the Fraser Institute, which will advise that this is the kind of legislation that's in the best interests of all, or that one doesn't give input to the great unwashed. No, that's not what we require. We require an opportunity for input. If this government could have come before the House, with this bill, having fully canvassed not the details but the direction, having fully canvassed the policy and not the clauses, and could have come in here and said, "Look, this is what is required for these reasons — however, it's only required for this length of time because of a particular economic situation that we face," that would be one thing. But that's not the way it happened. The way it happened was that out of the blue came a bill breaking a promise of the Minister of Finance and the Premier when they brought in their original legislation, which did not have a sunset clause but certainly had a clause — I shouldn't say "clause," but it certainly had a promise — that went with it, parallel to it, that said: there is a length of time that this will be in force, after which we go back to collective bargaining, consultation, cooperation and so on. I'll bet you, Mr. Speaker, that with the amount of work that the Peck commission has done to date, they were most surprised when this legislation came down with no sunset clause attached and no promise attached. No minister, no one of authority over there, has got up and said that there is any end to this. I checked, Mr. Speaker — it's just not there. Commencement, yes. Cessation of this power, no. Can that be acceptable? I don't think so. I think that the government knows it full well.

Further, and giving rise to further argument for the hoist, would be that the government amend this immediately. Table an amendment this afternoon providing at least a sunset clause in this bill. For those who don't know what a sunset clause is, it's a clause that states that at the end of a certain time the bill goes out of force. Depending on what glasses I have on, I'll tell you the colour of the sunset. Sometimes it's pink and sometimes it's red. I've very seldom seen it blue. This hoist gives them an opportunity to do that. We rush this bill through the House. We can talk about it from now until forever and with all of the regrets forever, let's use our mentality now which surely dictates that this bill should be changed at least, and withdrawn as best.

Other jurisdictions are not resorting to this, and don't tell me that other jurisdictions are hurting any worse than this one. B.C. is one of the worst-hit economies in the country, by far the worst in the western section of this country. What have we done in the last couple of years? What have we done with a program that has helped the province? Nothing. What we could have done, instead of this, is what I'm suggesting now. Give the people an opportunity to participate in the direction that we wish. You can get people to do some pretty dam good belt-tightening when they are party to the process and decision-making. But you can't get people to participate in improving things if they are not party to the basis for those improvements. Government should never sit back and say: "Trust us. We know it all. Trust our legislation. Trust these words writ in stone, as it turns out." Stone, because it does not have a clause stating when it is going out of force. It could be with us forever, creating the same misgivings and lack of trust as we have seen for the past while. Let's treat our brothers and sisters in society as equals, as free people. Let's give them an opportunity to respond to government in a positive way. We can, you know, and we don't need heavy-duty stuff like this to make people cooperate.

I'll conclude by saying I support the hoist, recognizing full well that it is a motion that cannot pass, recognizing that the government cannot permit it to pass, but it gives them an opportunity to make a statement with respect to, their intention and gives them a further opportunity to delay passage of the bill until they have some input. They don't have to vote for it, but it does give them an opportunity to think about the whole question. I think the situation that we have got ourselves into is deadly serious. As I said at the outset, never before has this province been so divided and in such a chaotic state as today. If the member doesn't like my statement, he has ample opportunity to get up and refute it. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your tender mercies.

MRS. DAILLY: I rise to support the hoist. I want to give some of the basic reasons....

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: I knew that my speech was interesting but I didn't know it was that quick.

I rise to support the hoist on Bill 11, which deals, of course, with the curtailment of further increases and actual decreases for the public servants of British Columbia and all those who are part of the public sector. When we moved this hoist, we heard the usual comments from the government side in reaction to the NDP motion. We have heard them before, when we have moved a hoist on what we consider some very important bills brought before this House that really have not had an opportunity to be explained to the public of B.C. in detail. That is the primary purpose of moving the hoist. We believe that this bill is not based on any basic realities. Instead, it is based on a series of myths perpetrated upon the B.C. public by the Social Credit propaganda machine. I mean that in this sense: we are being ask to accept in this bill that the whole basis of the bill is the government's ability to pay, and productivity. When I spoke before on this bill, I tried to make the points that these were not really the facts behind the bill. I want to take my place today in analyzing and explaining the reason for the hoist, along with an analysis of the bill, to point out to the government that it is indeed necessary to have a rational debate on this bill. That's why I'm supporting the hoist, because I do not think that rational debate has taken place, because the government does not enter into rational debate on this bill; they just keep repeating the usual myths about the need for

[ Page 2044 ]

restraint. They do not tell us in any detail how this bill is really going to bring about a recovery in the economy, or describe the necessary "restraint measures." That's why I think it's necessary to go through in some detail all the myths that have been built up in the areas of productivity and the ability to pay,

You know, Mr. Speaker, a hoist is indeed necessary, because, I think it would be a very dangerous thing if we had hoisted upon the public of British Columbia a bill that is really a political statement and is not really based on any rationality or logic. It's because of that underlying philosophy in this bill that I think it would indeed be very dangerous to allow a bill to go forward that, in essence, will really be fooling the public of British Columbia, because it has been hoisted upon the public, may I repeat again, on a basis of myths that have not been analyzed. I don't think any government will be doing any good to the economy or the living conditions of the people of British Columbia if they are allowed to have a bill passed that has not been subject to complete, open public debate.

May I say — and it may be digressing — that even though we're now debating this bill in the House and have had an opportunity to debate it for a number of hours, there are still many people in the province of British Columbia who do not have an opportunity to read Hansard; to catch the brief news broadcasts that come forward, to the best of the ability of the reporters to inform the public; or to watch us here now being televised in this proceeding.

[12:00]

I really do not believe that I'm digressing when I mention that, because I feel that this is another reason that many of these bills which are being passed in the B.C. Legislature in 1983 really demand more inspection and analysis, and I do feel that the government would be well advised to consider at some time — I hope in the near future — televising these proceedings. Then I think we would find more of a reaction from the public of British Columbia, who would be able to watch both sides in debate, and I think it would give them a better opportunity to weigh the reasons for the opposition in asking for a hoist versus the reasons the government will not grant a hoist. So I feel that the government itself, as well as the opposition, would be well served if you, Mr. Speaker, would — at some time perhaps move on that opportunity for the Legislature to give you the right to televise. I do not want to put the blame on your shoulders.

[Mr. Nicolson in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I notice it is now 12 o'clock; I have considerably more material on this bill....

AN HON. MEMBER: There's no 12 o'clock....

MRS. DAILLY: I was just going to ask if the House Leader was interested in an adjournment, just so I know, so I can organize my notes better. He's not here. Shall I carry on?

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep it going.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I was discussing the whole area of the myths that this is based upon. It also reminds me of the simplistic basic statements behind this bill and the propaganda from the Social Credit members that goes with it.

There's quite an analogy with the kind of rhetoric that is coming out of the United States and Great Britain at this time, because both those countries have been following these very hard, heavy policy moves on the public sector employees. I think it's interesting to note that both of those countries' leaders also couch the reasons for these very draconian measures on a select group in our society — that is, our public sector employees — in the same basic, simplistic terms. For example, yesterday the Prime Minister of Great Britain....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being impolite, I would wonder if the member is actually speaking on the hoist or is using this time to digress into international politics and that sort of thing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member for his point, and I'm sure the member will relate her remarks to the motion to hoist the bill for six months.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I'm very glad that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing did stand up and make the point that I was digressing. The very fact that that minister and the other members of Social Credit cannot see the analogy between what is being done in other countries, such as Great Britain and the United States, and what their own government is doing in relation to this bill — the very fact that their minds cannot grasp that — is one of the problems we have with this government. It again shows that they approach everything on a very simplistic basis. I had hoped that I could debate in those terms, rather than in the basic, simplistic terms that the cabinet ministers seem to think are the only approach they can take in dealing with the public of British Columbia.

I believe that the public of British Columbia has a right to realize that what is being done to the public sector employees in this province has an underlying philosophy. It has an underlying right-wing, radical, extremist philosophy that underlies every one of the bills that have been brought in, including this one. How on earth can I debate if I am going to be restricted when dealing with the relationship between the philosophy of this bill and other right-wing, extremist philosophies?

I wish to examine this whole area and talk about the ability to pay. It's very interesting, because that's what underlies all the cutbacks, not only in services and employees but in wages for the public sector: this whole business of the ability to pay. The ability to pay never seems to come into question when the Social Credit government wishes to build some monuments to themselves. I'm not going to argue the value of the domed stadium. The point is, without debating the value of the domed stadium, that we have a government that always seems to find the ability to pay when it comes to domed stadiums and building highways to expensive ski resorts. It always seems to have the ability to pay when it comes to getting a massive propaganda machine going which will be used, no doubt, to try to explain, in simplistic terms, the reasons behind this bill. I think that myth should be demolished now. The matter of ability to pay, which is being used over and over again by Social Credit in discussing this bill, is not relevant whatsoever. If it were, the Social Credit government would not be able to find the ability to pay millions and millions of dollars for many other projects that are going on in this province. The subsidization of northeast

[ Page 2045 ]

coal, whether we go into the pros and cons or not, did show that the government did have — apparently, or so they told us — the ability to pay for that, although the results of the debt on the people of B.C. are not known at this time.

One of my basic reasons for asking for a hoist is because I say that when they talk about the ability to pay as being the background for this bill, it is not true and it is not so. The public of British Columbia deserves the right to have a proper debate on that aspect of the bill. I think the simplistic approach here in this House, where the government suggests to us that we have no right to ask for the hoist to give the public of British Columbia a chance to discuss the bill, is absolutely irresponsible of the government, and it is not irresponsible of the opposition to be asking for that right.

We constantly hear about the waste of time, the cost and so on, and that is only because what the opposition is doing in discussing a hoist on this bill is bringing to the attention of the public that it is a dreadful bill. It is a bill that should not be passed. Naturally, since Social Credit want it passed, the only argument they have against our point is to say that we are wasting time. You know, we expect that to be used around the province, and we are prepared to combat it. I think the public elected an opposition to do the very sort of things that we're doing: that is, to stand up here and fight against legislation that we consider to be unfair and founded upon meaningless statements that actually and simply express a right-wing, extremist philosophic policy.

I think that it is our duty to point this out to the public. I know it is not easy, because politicians who use simplistic, primitive terms do certainly find it easier to get the public's attention, but I happen to believe that the public can only be fooled so long and that in time they will say, perhaps.... I'm sure you, as a former teacher, Mr. Speaker, remember the old tale "The Emperor's New Clothes." I think in time the Social Credit government will be exposed as that emperor who has no clothes.

The matter of productivity, which underlies this bill, according to the Social Credit government, is also very interesting because it too is another myth: that this bill, if we pass it, means that salaries will be based on productivity. I want to deal with why I believe that that whole area of productivity is a myth. I want to analyze that, if I may.

It's interesting to note that the Minister of Finance in 1979, I believe, announced with great fanfare that he was setting up a productivity committee for government. It sounded great. But, you know, we're now in 1983. Whatever happened to it? We never heard of it again. What I'm trying to say is that so much of what the Social Credit government does is simply based on their own philosophy, which they hope they can cover in simplistic terms that have no basis in fact whatsoever. The productivity that was announced by the Minister of Finance in 1979.... Nothing has ever come of it. Now we're being asked to believe that this same government, which has had all these years to do something about productivity.... We're asked to believe, once again, that this bill that they've put before us is going to do something about the area of productivity. It's pretty difficult to accept that, when this government has had many years to handle that area of productivity and nothing has developed.

The Social Credit government have certainly paid lip-service. That's what it amounts to: lip-service to the whole discussion on higher productivity. Yet they really haven't shown that there is any practical hope of this actually being achieved. This government seems to delight in making many generalized statements, but when you really analyze them, have they themselves produced? I think if we're going to analyze productivity, we should probably start with the Social Credit government itself and say: "What have they really produced for the people of British Columbia, since achieving office, as far as improving the standard of living of the people of British Columbia, as far as improving the economy?" I think we'd have to say that they have failed in both areas. Yet here in this bill, which we're asking to have hoisted, we find that they are once more prattling about productivity. Yet they themselves have not been able to show the people of British Columbia that they can produce for the betterment of the citizens. One does become somewhat cynical about what is really behind this bill.

The Social Credit government seems to be great at the old tradition of offloading responsibilities onto other agencies. They consider that perhaps that is going to increase productivity. I don't know how. They seem to think that in cutting back and frightening public servants as far as salaries and so on go they have another alternative with the public who might get concerned at this. They simply say, "Don't worry, the volunteer agencies and other associations will pick it up," which of course is absolutely ironic: that in a period of recession agencies which are struggling to survive are expected to take on increased burdens.

So you see, Mr. Speaker, why it is so necessary to continue public debate on this kind of a bill, because underlying this bill are many, many fallacies. It is the duty of the opposition to expose these fallacies. We would like the opportunity to expose them not only here, but publicly through committee. Perhaps the government would at least have the nerve to call such a committee so that they can have their policies analyzed, not only by the opposition but by other interested citizens, who don't have the same forum as we have here, and who, as I mentioned earlier, do not even have the opportunity to watch this on television.

[12:15]

It's quite understandable why the Social Credit government does not want to accept this motion to hoist. It's quite clear. If you hoist this bill, it will have time to sit out there and really be analyzed by the public of British Columbia. That analysis will not bode well for the Social Credit government because the people who take the time to analyze it will be able to point out to the public that this kind of bill is not going to achieve the kind of economic recovery — helping the restraint problem, as they say — that the Social Credit propaganda machine tries to tell us it will do.

They talk about the waste of time and money when the official opposition moves in on a hoist. But they do not talk equally about the time — not so much time, perhaps, but money — which is going to be spent by cabinet ministers making television shows to go around the province of British Columbia to explain a bill — and other bills, but this one in particular — which they are unable to defend adequately, with logic and rationality, on the floor of this House. A government that finds it necessary to spend millions of dollars to sell their programs on television surely suggests that it does not really have the courage as a government to defend the bill on its own merits without using the taxpayers' money to try to explain the merits of a bill, a bill which actually has no merit. The Social Credit government, if they really want to show that they are not afraid to face the public on the merits of their legislation, would do as many civilized states and provinces in other countries do: they would allow a bill such

[ Page 2046 ]

as this to be probed and analyzed through a committee system.

These bills that are being passed are not minor bills. The reason why the official opposition is so concerned about their passage and is asking for a hoist is simply because we realize that underlying what appears to be simplistic legislation are some very, very serious policy changes. It has already been pointed out that when these bills pass, they are going to change the whole social and economic fabric of the province of British Columbia. The opposition cannot just sit back and see a complete change in our society; it cannot just sit back and let it go.

So I reiterate again how important it is for these bills not to be passed without proper examination. There are bills that the Legislature can deal with without going through a committee system and further scrutiny; we in the official opposition have already shown that we are prepared to allow those bills to go through with no prolonged debate. But we would be abrogating our responsibility as members of the official opposition if we allowed to go through a bill that has underlying it, as this bill does, a major philosophical change toward right-wing extremism in this province. We cannot allow it to go through until the public actually knows what the bill is about.

Mr. Speaker, we often hear that public servants shouldn't have tenure and so on, as compared to.... No one is stressing that in this bill, but underlying this bill and much of the Social Credit's simplistic approach to legislation is always a basic comparison with the private sector. We must look at the relationship between the private sector and its employees and the way the Social Credit government feels it can treat its public sector employees, as we see in this bill.

The private sector does not operate on the principle that jobs are continuously in jeopardy as long as there are any potentially more capable contenders for them. Loyalty, experience and past service create not only a presumptive claim to a job as long as it continues, but also a claim to priority in consideration for other positions. What is happening under the Social Credit government, and what we see underlying this bill, is a complete abrogation of some of the basic employee rights that we see even in the private sector today. It's a pretty sad state of affairs when a government that should be leading in the treatment of employees instead is now falling behind the private sector in the way they treat them.

How on earth can the Social Credit government ever expect to have loyalty and full productivity — as they keep talking about — from a personnel which is constantly wondering when the axe is going to fall, wondering how long they are going to be singled out for regressive measures in salaries, even though the cost of living continues to rise? How long can you expect to maintain a good workforce with good morale when they realize they are being treated as second-class citizens by the Social Credit government? If this bill passes, it will signal once again to the public sector of British Columbia that they are indeed second-class citizens. It is signalling to the public sector employees throughout the system, including the public school teachers, municipal employees, etc., that they alone have to be punished for the inefficiencies and burnblings of the Social Credit government. And no bill should be foisted on the public of British Columbia which has characteristics that are unfair and unjust and, even more, that will not produce the desired results.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We know there is an attempt not only to cut back salaries, but there has been a massive move by the Social Credit government to contract out. I can see the difference from the time I first came to this Legislature, when most of the employees in this building and elsewhere were public servants. This is not to say there is anything wrong with the people who are doing the work, but gradually Social Credit have moved into contracting out. I know that is a major debate in municipalities and elsewhere, but I wonder if the Social Credit government has ever actually analyzed the pros and cons of contracting out. They may think there are advantages to it, but I would like to point out that there are also disadvantages; and it's this advantages versus disadvantages that the opposition is attempting to get out to the public so they can weigh the effectiveness of the legislation of the Social Credit government.

The debate that takes place in this House on these pieces of legislation is almost entirely one-sided. The odd time a government member will get up and deliver some rather loud, noisy, rhetorical speech. Not always; some of the members have delivered some quiet, gracious speeches. But none of them really deals with the basic question of whether this bill is based on the premise of ability to pay and productivity, and I say it isn't. I say this bill is simply another political statement by a government that seems determined to follow the right-wing extremist policies which we now see developing under a certain political party in the United States. I often wonder how many of the government members have really analyzed what they're going to be doing, not only to the public sector employees but also, basically, to the province of British Columbia, if these rather simplistic, unthinking policies go through. That is why we keep asking for a hoist.

Frankly, I do not think that the Minister of Finance, the cabinet and the back-benchers of the Social Credit government have bothered to take the time to look at the adverse effects of this bill. I think somehow or other they're caught up in right-wing rhetoric. They really believe that if they continue to go on their track of eliminating more and more public servants, if they continue to put restraints on the poor and low-income in this province, somehow or other everything is going to turn out beautifully. But I would ask in the hoist that they pay attention to what is happening in other countries in the world who have followed this right-wing policy, and tell us and the public if the economy has improved in those countries — I'm now talking about England and the United States — if employment has increased, if the standard of living has at least been maintained. Mr. Speaker, none of these three things has happened. Yet somehow or other the Social Credit government keeps bringing before us bills which are based on that same radical right-wing approach to trying to solve today's problems; and it isn't working. That is why we would like to see out there in the province of British Columbia a proper debate on the best way to deal with the economy today and the whole area of handling government expenditures.

The tragedy, as in most debates, is that we are not really getting a debate, because each side, I believe, has already made up its mind and no one is really listening to anyone else on this matter. Perhaps it's time that the public of B.C. specifically entered into this debate. The only way they can do that is to have an opportunity to put this whole bill into a committee, where it can really be examined by the public, where you can hear from people who have had the time to

[ Page 2047 ]

study both sides and who are not partisan. I know that every statement we make on this side now is considered to be based strictly on our partisanship, and every statement made on the other side we view in the same way. I happen to believe — naturally — that the policies that we are enunciating will be more helpful to improve the economy than the policies of the Social Credit government. But we are being asked....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I know that this government won the election, but I want to repeat that they may have won it by....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: That's right. Just as many voted against you. But the point is, besides that, that you did not have a mandate for all these specific pieces of legislation. I think you know by a recent poll that the public always says: "Yes, we want restraint." I mean, who wouldn't say that today? But at the same time they say: "We do not agree with the methods being used by the Social Credit government." That very fact should give pause to this government before they go rushing ahead with legislation — not only this one, but many others that we have yet to deal with — that we contend will not improve the economy. Instead, it is going to continue to make it worse. That's the basic contention, Mr. Speaker. It isn't a matter of trying to fight the election all over again. We didn't have these pieces of legislation in front of us when the campaign was on. But we have been elected here to do our job of analyzing the government's legislation and oppose it if we feel it should be opposed. This particular piece of legislation, we really believe, is going to be injurious. Out of this legislation you once again are going to be building up, I regret to say, a confrontational mood out there in the public sector.

[12:30]

Most of the people who are working today in our classrooms, in municipalities as public sector employees, here in the buildings — all the myriad public sector employees — are not fools. They know that the economy is poor in British Columbia. They know that the golden days of the sixties, when you could demand more money and it was produced, are gone. They're not fools. Yet somehow or other this government has taken this patronizing attitude that they have to bring in some very heavy-handed, draconian measures against the public sector employees. The more one thinks about this government and their right-wing philosophy, which is not based on any real rationale or logic, the more one finds it frightening. If these pieces of legislation go through, we are going to be faced with a province that is going to have increased unemployment. The economy is not going to improve and, worst of all, we're going to have a real confrontational buildup in this province with the people who are no longer working, with public servants who are wondering when they are going to lose their jobs, and with people who cannot survive because of a lower standard of living, which has been imposed on those who can least endure it.

In conclusion, I want to say that it is not irresponsible of the opposition to ask for a hoist on this bill. We are being responsible, because we have a responsibility to all the citizens of British Columbia to get out there and have a rational debate in the eyes of the public.

MR. MACDONALD: I enjoyed the very thoughtful speech of the member for Burnaby North. I think Bill 11 calls for thoughtful consideration and reflection, and the motion before the House at the moment is that the bill be hoisted.

I support that motion for various reasons, but chiefly because I think in this bill we're touching something very close to the fundamental economic equity that we think should be achieved in this country. Strangely enough, I'm into restraint too; it isn't just Premier Bennett — and I don't mean stocks and bonds. I believe that some of the greedy appetites that result in excessive profits, managed prices and excessive incomes have to be restrained if we are to avoid inflation and produce full employment. So I approach this bill not as one saying that the old free-for-all can go on forever out in the economy, with everybody striving for whatever they may hope to get, depending on their strength in the marketplace. That has produced an extremely unfair distribution of wealth and income in Canada and will continue to do so. So as I say, I am into restraint myself. But not the same kind that Premier Bennett is into. He's into restraint of the wages of the public sector employees. I'm into the restraint of the top incomes and the unfair profits and the unfair capital gains that are so rife in our society. The result of that is that I'm disliked by a better class of people than Premier Bennett is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps the member could relate his remarks to the hoist amendment to Bill 11, and also avoid mentioning the name of another member of this assembly.

MR. MACDONALD: Of the Premier — all right. But I suggest, with respect, that I am right on the bill. We're talking in Bill 11 about the restraint of the wages of 240,000 people. I'm talking about that restraint in the context of the whole of society. I think that that is very much related to the principle of this bill.

I suppose the fundamental criticism of any attempt to restrain wages, incomes, profits and professional fees is that you've got to come up with a feeling that is shared by the people involved in the program that there's a fairness about it. That is what is totally lacking in this particular legislation. The government is picking out a particular group, which is the public sector employees — I agree, a very large group; I think they're supposed to total about 240,000 people. But they're being picked out and told: "You are under restraint but no one else is." Now there's a fundamental unfairness and discrimination about that kind of picking out of a particular group. If we were really producing a fair program of restraint where it is most needed throughout our society, I think the reception by the public would be entirely different. But what we're proposing here in terms of restraint has the disadvantage not only that it is discriminatory but also that it won't work. Under that second point, the government ought to take the time of the six-month hoist to consider whether this is really going to be an anti-inflation measure. Can you control the fires of inflation that are raging — a little subdued at present, but they will pick up again — by simply picking on the public sector employees? I see the Minister of Municipal Affairs shaking his head; I don't know whether he's tired or agrees with my point. I take it as agreement with what I was just saying.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You're wrong.

[ Page 2048 ]

MR. MACDONALD: I knew that sooner or later that minister would agree with something I said, and I thought this was the occasion.

In Bill 11, which the Minister of Finance should take time to reflect upon, you have the question of unfairness and the question of whether it's going to work in controlling real problems of inflation. I say real problems because I have no doubt that the problem of alternating inflation and unemployment.... With unemployment you ease up on the money supply and credit, and then you get inflation again and then additional unemployment, and very often both at the same time, as we've seen in the last short while. I have no doubt that that is at the core of the basic problem of our economy. But solving the inflation problem by merely picking out one section of government workers is not an answer to a very serious problem.

There's an economist who impressed me; he visited the province a year ago when the question of restraint of public sector employees' wages was first being broached and debated in British Columbia. He is Prof. Robert Russell, a professor at New York University, who has various other distinguished awards to his credit in the field of economics. He was asked about the provincial government's restraint program, and he said this:

"'It is a mistake to single out public sector workers for wage controls. Also, there's something a little bit ludicrous for a province to have its own anti-inflation policy,' said Robert Russell, former director of the Council on Wage and Price Stability under the Jimmy Carter administration."

Here's a man who's very well experienced in this field, a man the Minister of Finance might well wish to consult — people of this kind — in the event that the motion for a hoist of this bill passes so that the government will have time to reflect.

"Russell said in an interview that it's hard enough for Canada to control inflation under the shadow of the U.S. economy, let alone for one province to go it alone. 'I think it's a mistake to single out only public sector employees,' Russell said in regard to the Premier's announcement" — the one we're extending with this bill. "'These programs depend on public support to be effective. If they are seen to be inequitable they will self-destruct.'"

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's one of the points I've been making about this bill: it is inequitable, with all the inflationary forces and unfair price increases and profits out there in the economy, to single out one section of the wage-earners of the province and say: "You're under restraint but no one else is." Here's a distinguished economist who puts it much more effectively than I can. "This inequity also dooms attempts by governments to control wages but not prices, he said, because they alienate labour." And so they should alienate labour. It's not fair — and everybody recognizes that — to control wages and not the prices the wage-earner has to pay when he goes into the stores. There's something very unfair about that, and a program tainted with this kind of unfairness does not work. To use the same words that were used before, it self destructs. Russell goes on: "Wage-only restraints could work from a strictly economic point of view, but to work politically, they have to at least have the appearance of equity." There is no appearance of equity in Bill 11. It is a picking out, a discriminatory application of restraint to one segment of the working people of the province of British Columbia only.

Russell told his audience that wage and price controls can work, but only if they are intelligently designed and prudently administered and are accompanied by restrictive fiscal and monetary policy.

I won't go on with the rest of what Prof. Russell said, but his comments should be listened to by the Minister of Finance. To sum up this part of what I'm saying, the legislation we're talking about is discriminatory and won't work in terms of stopping inflation in British Columbia, let alone in Canada.

[12:45]

The Minister of Finance might use the time vouchsafed to him by this hoist motion to consult Paul Weiler. Paul Weiler, who I think is now in Harvard University, was one of the brightest public servants ever to serve in the province of British Columbia. He designed — in a field with all kinds of difficulties — the Labour Code of British Columbia, but his bright intellect doesn't stop at that point; he's interested in social questions as well. He recognizes the problems of inflation and unemployment that we've been experiencing in North America and Canada in the last few years, alternating one with the other and then combining both at the same time. He pointed out in an interview in June 1982 that it's straight economics that more than 80 percent of all domestically controlled costs stem from income wages, executive salaries and professional fees, and yet in this bill we're setting out to restrain wages of only one sector of the economy. We're going to depress, in particular, the economy of the city of Victoria, where the Legislature is sitting, because, as naturally would be the case, a great many public sector employees reside in the city of Victoria. The shock waves of this kind of legislation, in terms of the purchases at small stores....

The economy, generally, in the greater Victoria capital region will see a depression.

Weiler faces up to the real problems. He doesn't deny that the problems exist, but he says this kind of a solution is unfair and inequitable. In this sense, he's echoing what Prof. Russell from New York University said.

Prof. Russell made the point about fairness. When you look at the question of fairness in the context of British Columbia today, you see that it's absolutely lacking in the economic programs that have accompanied the budget, including this Bill 11. There's such an unfairness about them that a distinguished Roman Catholic bishop, Remi de Roo, has this to say about the legislation generally, and that includes Bill 11. He comes right out and says that the legislation favours the rich and powerful and that services are being cut back for the poor while the rich are getting off with an easing of their tax burden. That's courageous criticism, and it is echoed by other church leaders. It homes right in on this bill we're discussing today because of its fundamental discriminatory factor. How can you say to any section of workers: "Your restraint went to take yesterday's paper"? This is old information, but it's graphically presented here.

In the Province of September 26 is the headline: "Bank Profits Soar Despite Economy". Despite the economy. And how they soar! They take the 11 domestic chartered banks in Canada over the years 1977-1983, which is five yearly gains, and show how those profits have gone up from $700 million to $1,700 million, which is 130 percent. What wage-earner did that well? What wage-earner had that kind of a base to work on? Because when you get 130 percent off $700 million, that's a lot of money. A lot of money! One hundred and thirty percent of some wage-earner who is making $1,100 a

[ Page 2049 ]

month isn't very much, but 130 percent of $700 million is a great deal of money, which comes out of somebody's pocket. It doesn't grow on trees. It was flowing into the coffers of the bank. This graph gives the bank profits for just the last five years, but speaking from memory, I'm quite sure that in the preceding five years the graph of bank profits was also rising.

The headline is intriguing, because we're talking about fairness, about hoisting Bill 11. The headline, which is perfectly true, says: "Bank Profits Soar Despite Economy." In other words, profits for the banks soar out of misery, almost as much as they soar out of good times; maybe even more. The oil companies had the same experience during the great oil shortage and the rationing and all of that. Everybody had to tighten their belts, prices were going up, they were buying and selling their barrels of oil on the international markets. In that period of adversity, international oil company profits were greater than ever.

People subjected to this kind of a bill have a right to look at this situation and say to themselves: "Is it fair that we're singled out, and that all these other things are happening in this free-for-all economy?" There are great inequities underway. The people who are restrained here, if they're young and work in the public sector, and if they're in a position to purchase a home and begin to bring up a family, may have to go to a bank. Or they may go to a bank because they have to purchase a car or something else. They're under Bill 11, restrained, and they go to the bank, which is totally unrestrained, profiteering, and say: "How much interest are you going to charge me on my bank loan?" There's something terribly unfair about that, that money, property and profits should be unrestrained, even though there's a monopoly position so far as the banks are concerned. They're pretty well in cahoots, just like the oil companies. But the incomes of ordinary individuals are restrained.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm having great difficulty trying to relate your remarks to the hoist of the bill. It's a compensation stabilization bill dealing with the public sector, and the motion before us is a six-month hoist. If the member can address his remarks to the principle of that hoist, we will be well served.

MR. MACDONALD: I'd like to speak on your point of order. I'm just one member of this assembly who is saying that what is wrong with Bill 11 is that it is restraining people when others are totally unrestrained and making exorbitant profits. You may not think much of that argument as a reason why this bill should be taken back and reflected upon, but that's why I want the six-month hoist. I'd say it's discriminatory and there's an unfairness about it. That's why I want six months, and I want it even if I have to stand here and try to pound those ideas into the mind of the Minister of Finance so that he'll agree to a six-month hoist. Come back with something that, if you think you must have this kind of legislation, is fair and applies evenly and equally, and that strikes the well-to-do before it strikes the poor. That is the argument which I suggest puts me perfectly in order in discussing this bill. My seatmate agrees that I'm in order.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

When you take a bill as basic as this, one that affects the livelihood and incomes of 240,000 people in the province, then you have to look at it in the context of the whole economy of the province. That's what I'm doing.

Let's stay within the public sector. I want to be in order, Mr. Speaker, but I'm saying something that I think is important about this bill. Is the medical profession in the public sector? Well, I suppose they are. About 30 percent of the payment for the medical services plan comes right out of the public treasury and the rest comes out of premiums publicly collected. So it's public money. Does this bill apply to the medical profession? No. Why not? If we're going to be fair, why not? I've known many doctors who do a good, long, hard week's work and make a moderate income. I know others who make incomes that are far from moderate. Why are they not subject to Bill 11?

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here attentively listening for what seems like hours — although I'm sure it's no more than 20 or 30 minutes — attempting to hone in on the relevancy of the hon. member's comments. I think his comments might be more appropriate to an amendment to the bill. His comments may well be to the principle of the bill, but they surely are not relevant to the principle of a hoist resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, while it is a fact that we are on a hoist motion, there is some difficulty in singularly discussing the hoist motion without some accompanying reference to the legislation and the need for the hoist. Nonetheless, I would ask that all members remember that we are specifically on the hoist motion. In that light I would ask the second member for Vancouver East to continue.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the main reason I'm asking for the hoist is that the Minister of Finance is a good thinker, but slow — a very slow thinker. He needs a good six months — I'm not even sure if that's long enough — to reflect upon the implications of this bill, and to ask whether the fairness is there, or whether the discriminatory aspect is so predominant that the bill should be redrafted or withdrawn completely. I am speaking on the hoist, with all due respect to the member in the back corner.

Let me just finish what I was saying. Bill 11 doesn't apply to the whole public sector, Mr. Speaker, and that adds to the discriminatory aspects of it. In 1982-83, the medical practitioners of the province of British Columbia received an additional $145 million over 1981-82. There are 5,003 doctors in B.C., but that figure is so high it almost staggers the imagination. This was after all the bally-hoo about giving back $30 million. It's included in that total equation.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, no, that's.... It would have been $175 million more. Now it's just $145 million.

Think in terms of the programs that have been cut, the wage restraint you want to put on some girl who is supporting herself and has to pay for an apartment, a car, repairs if it breaks — all of those things. You want to restrain the wages of some public sector employees, many of them not making very much, and out of that public treasury you have poured

[ Page 2050 ]

$145 million extra to 5,000 people, however meritorious they may be, who didn't need it, who are very well off. And then under this bill you say no, we're not going to control those fees? When you have unfairness and discrimination in legislation of this kind, it ought to be withdrawn totally, right back to the blackboard. So I support the hoist and hope the Minister of Finance will think this thing through. I'm sure he hasn't done that as yet.

I move this debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Until later today.

[1:00]

MR. MACDONALD: Until the next sitting. I'd rather have it tomorrow. I'm getting tired of it. Until later? All right. I move the debate be adjourned until later today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:00 p.m.