[ Page 2751 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 11). Committee stage. (Hon.

Mr. Curtis)

On section 2 –– 2751

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Howard

On the amendment to section 2 –– 2754

Mr. Lea

Mr. Howard

Division

On section 2 –– 2755

Mr. Lea

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Rose

Ms. Brown

Division

On section 4 –– 2761

Mr. Stupich

On the amendment to section 4 –– 2762

Mr. Stupich

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Cocke

Division

On section 4 –– 2763

Mr. Stupich

Mrs. Dailly

Division

On section 5 –– 2763

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Brown

Division

On section 7 –– 2765

Mr. Stupich

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Dailly

On the amendment to section 7 –– 2767

Division

On section 7 –– 2767

Division

On section 8 –– 2767

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Cocke

On Section 11 –– 2767

Ms. Brown

Mr. Stupich

On section 16 –– 2768

Mr. Stupich

Ms. Brown

Mr. Cocke

Division

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1983

The House met at 7:34 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 2.

MRS. WALLACE: Perhaps we should review what we're proposing to do here. Section 2 and adds a new dimension to the Compensation Stabilization Act. What it does is establish a program that will "encourage productivity," so it says, and "restrain and stabilize compensation in the public sector." How is it going to encourage productivity? One of the first requisites for encouraging productivity — this is going to be very hard, if not impossible to evaluate — is, to paraphrase, not only that it be fair, but also that it appear to be fair. I suggest that that is something that has certainly not been happening in the past. We have seen many examples that have not seemed completely fair in the 129 cases referred to the compensation stabilization officer. We have seen examples of people very close to high officials in the government receiving some sizeable increases, and that did not appear fair to people who were being told that not only would they get a small increase, they wouldn't get any increase. I know I am referring to other sections of this act, where we're talking about wiping out any reference to any increase at all for the public service. We've seen cutbacks in staff. We've seen rollbacks in wages. Yet we have seen these other cases that have not been fair, or certainly have not appeared to be fair.

One of the Crown corporations that comes under the Compensation Stabilization Act and would certainly be related is B.C. Hydro, which has made a lot of statements relative to what's going on with the present government's program. We've seen a report from R.W. Bonner, dated June 30, 1983, in which he talked about some of the things that the government is doing. He talked about the restraint program, and certainly the compensation stabilization program is part of that restraint. He has indicated that there were 13.4 percent fewer employees on staff on June 30, 1983, than there were on June 30, 1982, which is all part of the general program that we are discussing under this section. But there is one thing that concerns me and a number of those 1,344 people who are no longer working for B.C. Hydro. They have been deprived of their livelihood in the name of restraint and compensation stabilization. And yet, at the same time, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority's financial statements for the last couple of years show that their general manager, J.N. Olsen, received $84,733 salary in 1981. You would expect that in a company that is laying off 1,344 employees and attempting to operate under the government's legislation the general manager's salary would have been affected. What was he getting as of March 31, 1983? Over $84,000. By 1983 that salary is $125,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that again?

MRS. WALLACE: J.N. Olsen, manager of B.C. Hydro an increase from $84,733 to $125,000. According to my calculation, that's a 47.5 percent increase.

That doesn't fall within the guidelines. That doesn't come anywhere near the guidelines. That is not fair, Mr. Chairman, and that's the thing that has people so upset with this program — when those kinds of things are going on, those kinds of increases.

History indicates that you're not putting the brakes on the J.N. Olsens. You're putting the brakes on the 1,344 people you're laying off. That's why it's not fair, that's why people are upset about this kind of legislation, and that's why it's wrong to introduce legislation that allows that kind of thing to occur. If you can't put better controls.... If that's what the compensation stabilization officer is coming up with....

Did he approve that? Was that salary increase approved by the compensation stabilization officer, or is that one that just slipped through? Nobody cares. If you re at the top level, you can get as much as you like; if you're at the bottom level, you get no increase, you may get a cutback, or else you get laid off. That's what's so unfair about this legislation and that's what's so unfair about this section. If the minister has a response, I'd like to hear what it is.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: To the member for Cowichan-Malahat, I want to.... I'm sorry, I didn't hear clearly the beginning part of her remarks, but I believe the committee knows, and it has certainly been made very clear throughout the province, that senior management salaries in government and in Crown corporations are frozen.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not attempting to fool anyone. It is a matter of fact.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please allow the minister to respond.

HON. MR. CURTIS: If a job has altered significantly — and I underline the word "significantly," Mr. Chairman — then there would be an opportunity for a salary increase. But, frankly, I'm offended when the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) says that's not true. Senior management salaries in government and in Crown corporations in this province are now frozen, and have been frozen for some considerable length of time. If the member for Cowichan-Malahat wishes....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, order, please. The minister is trying to respond. Please let's allow him the courtesy....

HON. MR. CURTIS: If the member would care to elaborate on her statement with precise dates and dollars, then I will certainly take that up with the minister responsible, and I

[ Page 2752 ]

apologize at the outset for not having heard the dates that applied in the case that she was making. But let there be no misunderstanding about it: those salaries are frozen, and will remain frozen for an indefinite period.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, no, I've said it twice. But if the member wishes, I'll certainly....

[7:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Cowichan-Malahat.... ?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'll defer.

Interjections.

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

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I can either read the figures or I can send the minister copies of these photostats. But I can read them again. This is the financial statement of B.C. Hydro and Power Authority for the year ended March 31, 1981. J.N. Olsen, who was the general manager, received $84,733 in salaries and wages, plus $17,988.98 in expenses. In March of 1982 — again, this is from the financial statement — he received $114,528, plus $23,851.91 in expenses. And at March 31, 1983, he received $125,000.04 in salaries and wages and $15,867.60 in expenses — his expenses are a bit lower in 1983.

MR. HOWARD: That 4 cents is for productivity.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, that's probably about the amount of productivity.

If you tell me that they're frozen, then those figures indicate that that's not the case, and I'll be happy to get copies of these made and see that the minister gets them. I think that's one example.... I have nothing against Mr. Olsen — I know him personally and I have nothing against him — but those kinds of figures destroy the credibility of the program. Those are the kinds of figures that are upsetting the little people around this province. When you have that kind of information — and it gets out; people know this....

Obviously it's general information if it's filed in their financial report. The program is not credible. It becomes suspect.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not credible without that.

MRS. WALLACE: But that makes it even less credible, Madam Member. As I said in the beginning, if you're going to have fairness, if you're going to have the kind of thing that this talks about, with a program that will encourage productivity — if you want to encourage productivity this kind of thing is not the way to go about it. This discourages productivity.

While I'm on my feet, let's talk about productivity. How in the world do you assess productivity? I know there are other sections where this will be discussed in more detail, but this relates to it too. How do you assess productivity? Who assesses it? How do you decide on productivity? If you're turning out so many pieces of a specific gear for an automobile, or if you're plucking so many chickens, or if you're growing mushrooms and get so many kilograms per square metre, then you can judge productivity. But how do you judge the productivity of a nurse in a hospital? How do you judge the productivity of a teacher in the classroom with disabled kids? How do you judge the productivity of a lineman with B.C. Hydro out in a snowstorm or a windstorm restoring power? How do you judge that productivity? It's an impossibility. And to try to bring that in to this already unpalatable section and make it sound like it's something really great; that you're going to evaluate these people and they're all going to be judged fairly and have an equal chance — all that, when at the same time you're letting a manager of that company have an increase in two years of 47.5 percent? There's no credibility. There is no responsibility. There's no point in this particular section.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Since the member was kind enough to restate dollars and dates with respect to a senior official in B.C. Hydro, I will review that. However, as the member knows, Mr. Chairman, there's no attempt to keep that information confidential; it is published regularly. When I indicated a few moments ago that public sector senior management salaries were frozen, particularly with respect to the provincial government and its Crown corporations, the effective date of that freeze was February 1982. If the member is speaking about fairness, most of us would remember the case of senior management in the municipality of Surrey, where certain increases that had been permitted were in fact rolled back by the commissioner. I may be wrong but I trust that we've spent sufficient time on that one individual. I'd like the photocopies just for ease of access, but bear in mind that she has quoted March 31, 1981, March 1982, and March 1983, and the freeze went in place in the latter part of February 1982. So I simply make that observation.

It's important, I think, in looking at section 2, to consider that productivity is not identified in isolation. It is one of a couple of factors which make up the purpose of the act: "to establish a program that will encourage productivity and restrain and stabilize compensation in the public sector," etc. The section was been read several times in the course of this afternoon and was referred to again earlier this evening. We don't pretend to have all the answers with respect to how one measures productivity. I acknowledge that it cannot be accurately measured in certain instances — i.e., the Hydro lineman on a very filthy night somewhere on the Howe Sound coast or northern Vancouver Island — wherever it may be. But it seems to me that within the very small staff available to the commissioner of CSP, within the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary, who has the larger responsibility for "productivity," a number of very useful activities are underway with respect to identifying productivity among many public sector employees. I don't intend to offend the rules in terms of this section by enumerating them, but I think they have been and will be referred to in days and weeks to come. That may mean that certain individuals and certain groups of employees are prepared to undertake particular activities which previously had been assigned elsewhere, or had been sent out, as it were; a willingness to undertake them. That is a measurement of productivity. A willingness to abandon some of the "perks" which have been enjoyed in the past could be a factor in negotiation, and in review by the commissioner in the CSP program as a way to improve productivity.

[ Page 2753 ]

It is incumbent upon employee groups and employers in the public sector to continue, not just for two weeks, or for the purpose of this debate or this session.... It's an ongoing responsibility of both sides to identify productivity, ways in which productivity can be increased and improved. If I were to presume to stand here tonight and say, "Well, productivity means this and that," then I think I would be misleading the committee. I would be assuming something that it is not mine to assume. I believe there is, in the private and public sectors, that desire to improve productivity.

Am I offending this section, or the rule with respect to this section, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's in this section.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Let me allude very briefly to the program of suggestion awards that was initiated in the Ministry of Finance but which has spread throughout government during the last 12 to 15 months. The cynics will say: "Suggestion awards! That's sort of a sop. It's something that sounds pretty good, but nobody will follow up." The fact is that employees in the provincial service in this province have come up with countless ideas and are being rewarded for them. I use "rewarded" in the correct sense: rewarded for offering those suggestions to senior managers in government. Ways in which to improve productivity. Ways in which to avoid paper work that is meaningless, that is just stored away somewhere. Ways in which to speed up the process in terms of the people we all serve.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the garbage can.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Never in the garbage can, Madam Member. That's productivity. That kind of thing is slow to build, but it is essential in this amending act. It is essential to the fundamental thesis with respect to compensation stabilization in this province.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a couple things to say. It's probably going to be more than a couple after the minister's remarks about productivity and the suggestion idea. He says he instituted it through the Ministry of Finance. How long ago is it since I was an employee of B.C. Hydro? I don't like to think how many years ago. That was certainly operative in B.C. Hydro at that time. I served on what was called the paper committee, where we were doing those things. Is the government just getting around to this kind of thing now? We were involved with those things in Hydro 15 or 20 years ago when I was there. We didn't call it productivity; we called it common sense. The unfortunate part was that we got it through the lower levels in the regional district area, but when we got it to the big house in Vancouver it suddenly got stopped. I remember getting an award one time for designing a new timesheet for Hydro. That's productivity? Those things have been around for a long time. If the minister is just discovering this, I'm surprised.

I don't want to belabour poor Olsen, but the minister did say that the salaries were frozen as of February 1982. On March 31, 1982, Mr. Olsen received $114,528, One year later, March 31, 1983, he received $125,000.04. Is that frozen? Was that salary reviewed by Mr. Peck? Was his job description changed? Were his duties changed? I know we have job descriptions in B.C. Hydro, because I have been around that outfit for a long time. If his job description was changed to entitle him to earn that extra money. Is the minister prepared to let us see those job descriptions? Was it frozen? Was it reviewed by Peck? If it was increased because of a change in responsibility, then what did the job description say that changed that responsibility?

MR. CHAIRMAN: With the greatest respect to the minister and, of course, to the member, we might be developing an argument now that would he better dealt with in another minister's estimates. I appreciate that the member has correctly identified her argument with this section, and the minister has responded, but I think we do have a scope here for it.

[8:00]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, if that is the Chair's wish I don't want to pursue it. I have undertaken to examine the job descriptions. For the purposes of this section, while the member may feel that it is an excellent example....

Again, I indicate that senior managementos salaries were and remain frozen. That's all I can do with respect to one individual in B.C. Hydro. I did not suggest suggestion awards as something brand-new, Madam Member.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No. But I think the member assisted me, Mr. Chairman, when she said ideas were offered but they never reached the big place, the big tower. The fact is that they do now and they are implemented. I didn't say that this was something that had been invented in British Columbia in the last 15 months, but it's an element of productivity.

MS. SANFORD: I wonder if I could pursue this business of productivity with the minister for just one moment. The minister indicated to us that he did not want to say that A, B, C, D and E had to happen in such and such a job in order to be measurable in terms of productivity. I'm particularly interested because I know the teaching profession. I would like the minister to give us some general outline — not A, B, C, D and E — of what he sees as an increase in productivity within the school system. Does he mean additional pupils in a classroom? That may mean an additional number of students, but it does not mean additional productivity if education is your ultimate aim. Does it mean giving out more As to students? Does it mean marking more papers? What is it that the minister has in mind as it applies particularly to that profession?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, if we pursued this form of debate we could go through the entire structure of local government, the education system, universities. I think my duty to the committee and to this House tonight is to indicate that productivity is to be taken into account. The member has shown....

MS. SANFORD: But you can't measure it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would refer the member to my earlier remarks. The member has identified the teaching profession. I think it is presumptuous of me, Mr. Chairman, to stand here tonight on behalf of the Minister of Education, or perhaps without consultation with the Minister of Education, and say that these are the factors that would apply in the

[ Page 2754 ]

education system in the province; or say on behalf of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications that these are the factors that should be taken into account in the university community; or if one wishes to speak about the Attorney-General's ministry. The examples and the responses could be endless.

The fact is that we have laid in place the requirement that public sector employers and public sector employees recognize that there is to be an increasing importance assigned to productivity. I cannot assist the committee tonight by identifying all those possibilities, except to say that as recently as yesterday I met with one ministerial colleague who has an idea with respect to increasing productivity in his particular ministry. Whether it will work or not remains to be seen. But the very fact that this bill is before the committee, before the Legislature, has assisted him in identifying productivity as a factor, along with restraint and the other points that are mentioned in this relatively brief purpose section.

MR. HOWARD: I think productivity is a catch-phrase that has been used, employed and attempted to be put into effect in various industries for some period of time. In fact, at one point in the history of Canada the federal Parliament passed a national productivity act and set up a national productivity council whose purpose was to deal with the question of productivity. It's a nice-sounding word. The application of it seems to be in grave doubt. Perhaps if the minister had used the word efficiency or efficient employment of workers' hours and that sort of thing, he might have been able to get the message across of what the government is seeking to do. Productivity is the wrong word. It's a nice-sounding word, but it's meaningless in the context of what is being said here, particularly since the minister — as he did with the ability-to-pay concept — said that there are all sorts of possibilities out there: this ministry may deal with, productivity in a different way than another ministry would, a school board may apply it differently, a municipality may have something different and so on. That's understandable. Why then, I asked, is there only reference in the bill to a program in the singular? "The purpose of this Act is to establish a program," when in fact it should be "to establish programs," if there is this broadness out there of diverse groups that may have different approaches to it, as distinct from one other group. It seems to fail on that ground.

I would therefore, in order to get to that point, move that section 2 be amended in line 1 by deleting the words "a program" and substituting therefore the word "programs," so that it would read: "The purpose of this Act is to establish programs that will...." It seems to need the plural, if there is a plural situation out there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I find it in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, quick consultation with my good friend the House Leader suggests that in the Interpretation Act it may be that the singular means the plural. I have no strenuous objection to what the member for Skeena has suggested, but I would ask that we have just a moment in order that.... Perhaps someone else would care to raise another matter. I think the singular represents the plural.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Debate can proceed on the amendment.

MR. LEA: Well, I think the Chair has ruled that although debate has to be limited to this section it is fairly wide-ranging in discussing this particular section. It seems to me that the section can be broken into two parts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're a little narrower now, because we're on an amendment to change the words "a program" to "programs."

MR. LEA: I don't think that will hinder me in what I have to say, whether it's program or programs.

The first part of this paragraph says that the purpose of this act is two things: to establish a program that will encourage productivity — I see that as one part — and to establish and restrain and stabilize compensation in the public sector while ensuring that the paramount consideration for determining compensation is the public sector's ability to pay. Well, it would be difficult to argue against what this says; it's a bunch of words that sound good, and it's hard to argue against the words, because all the key words are in place: "restraint," "stabilize," "compensation," "productivity." To argue against those words would get you nowhere or anywhere.

But I think what we have to do is establish what we mean by these words so that we're all talking about the same thing. The word "productivity" is used — as I understand productivity, and I want to understand it the same way the minister does so we can discuss it in an intelligent way....

MR. CHAIRMAN: And particularly with respect to the amendment which we have accepted and are now speaking to, which is very, very minor.

MR. LEA: That's right. So what I'm doing now is talking about the need for programs as opposed to a program, but in order to establish whether we need programs, I think we need to define the words, at least for my edification, to support the amendment.

Productivity to me means that if you're turning out X amount of product with Y number of people, productivity would be to still turn out X with fewer people or to turn out more than X with the same number of people or even fewer people. That's as I would understand productivity, and I hope the minister would understand it in the same way. In other words, if we're going to apply productivity to the public sector, we have to establish that we're either turning out the same amount of programs with fewer people, or we're turning out more programs with the same number of people or with fewer people. I contend that what action the government is taking out of this is achieving none of the above in describing productivity. We're going to turn out fewer programs with less people. So that doesn't define productivity. If we were turning out the same amount of programs with the same number of or fewer people, that would be a productivity rise. So I don't see where we're achieving productivity by cutting programs down at the same time as we're cutting staff down. We may be saving money. We're not going to either have to tax people more or borrow more, or a combination of both, in order to achieve what the government is achieving, but it can in no way be called productivity. The word "productivity" seems a misnomer to me. Maybe some other word or some

[ Page 2755 ]

other phrase could be used. So before I go on to the second part of this, with some questions for the minister, I'd just like to ask him whether he agrees with me in the terms I've described, and also if he agrees with me that to turn out fewer programs with fewer people couldn't be described as productivity in the sense that economists use the word.

HON. MR. CURTIS: First of all, with respect to the suggestion made by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the interjection and the recollection with respect to the Interpretation Act is correct. I would simply refer, as I'm sure other members have, to section 28(3): "In an enactment words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular." Therefore I think we'll stay with the singular, knowing that it could cover a number of programs to encourage productivity.

MR. HOWARD: All that would be well and good if the minister's own bill did not, in the immediately preceding section, speak in the plural. If you want to have some kind of continuity to it, then have it all the way through. That's all I'm trying to get at. It'd be more precise and clearer to people who will have this piece of legislation in their hand but will not necessarily have the Interpretation Act in their hand. That's all I'm saying: you should say what it is that is meant, which is why I moved the amendment.

[8:15]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 8

NAYS — 30

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

On section 2.

MR. LEA: Are you ready, Mr. Minister, to answer my question?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member for Prince Rupert set forth his views with respect to perhaps a more precise definition of productivity. I say parenthetically that the member for Skeena also wondered if efficiency wasn't a better word than productivity, but we will stay with productivity. However, to return to the point made by the member for Prince Rupert, it isn't simply a question, in my view, of attempting to do the same amount of work with fewer people, or better work with the same number of people. Those may be factors, but it may be higher-quality work; it may be work that is more effective in terms of the taxpayer. I think that there's a danger here in attempting to narrow a definition of productivity beyond that which would be appropriate over the next number of years.

What we have in section 2 is a purpose clause. It is a statement of principle, if one would permit me to say that, to set the framework for the next ten years, plus or minus, and to indicate to all who are concerned with public sector compensation — provincial, Crown corporations; municipal, school districts; we've gone through the whole list before — that when you are negotiating public sector compensation, and when the commissioner and his staff are reviewing it, they must take these principles and purposes into effect. That really is, I think, the way in which I would like to conclude my comments on this section. It is a purpose clause. I think it could be observed that under other legislative forms it might be a preamble, but it is a purpose section.

MR. LEA: I, for a moment, would like to put myself in the place of a manager within the public sector. I would look at my mandate from the government in regard to productivity. I would have to say to myself: "Well, I've read what the minister had to say as a guideline for productivity. It's something that the minister doesn't want to define too narrowly. He really wants it held as sort of a mandate for the next ten years — plus or minus — as a principle." I say: "That sounds really great. Now what is the principle?" Well, that's the part that the minister can't quite define. It's a little fuzzy. I know that as a good manager in the public service I'd better meet it, except that there are no guidelines. As a matter of fact, not even are there no specific guidelines, but even the principle itself, according to the government spokesmen in these matters, is not definable. It's just a matter of principle. Okay. Now as I understand the matter of principle, productivity does not fit into the equation whatsoever, but the second part of the paragraph does, and that's talking about restraining and stabilizing compensation in the public sector — basically do it to the best that the taxpayers can afford, is what it's saying; the ability to pay.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this act is one that I heard the Premier say tonight he feels that the majority of the people in this province are in favour of. The purpose of this act is to bring about restraint. People have said, to my knowledge, in polls and to me personally — I mean, you just get it all over; it's sort of like a conventional wisdom — that they do want restraint, but they may not be too happy with the methods that the government is employing to achieve restraint. The government says that the reason for this whole program of restraint on government is to encourage economic recovery in the private sector. The minister said earlier in the debate that he doesn't want to talk about the nuts and bolts of it, in talking about this, and I think that's proper. You can't talk about the nuts and bolts, but I think you can talk in a broad way about this particular section. If the purpose of this act is to bring around restraint, in order to aid and abet economic recovery, then I think it calls for some examination of the broad principle.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, section 2 deals more specifically with the public sector and the public sector employers' ability to pay.

[ Page 2756 ]

MR. LEA: Okay. I'll stick to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that's implicit. This is a broad section, I agree, but that really is implicit.

MR. LEA: Okay, I agree with you, and I will stick to that, as much as I can.

Basically, what the government is doing, carried out by the purpose of this act, is to restrain government spending, hoping, they say, to get better productivity — undefined — but only to the employers' ability to pay. In other words, the taxpayers — or the government, as the employer in this case....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Okay, but in this case the government is the employer. They get their money from the taxpayers. Now is it a fact that the government, first of all, does not have the ability to pay? That has to be established. I think everyone agrees that the money's not rolling in, so there's some problem with revenue, all right, and ability to pay. But what about priorities? What about the priority of spending based on the ability to pay? There may be some kook, but I don't think there's one person, with the exception of the one kook, in this province who really would relish the thought of taking away $50 a month from the handicapped. Nobody wants to do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now we are straying, hon. member.

[8:30]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we're not only canvassing debate that has been extensively put forward on this particular bill in second reading, but we're canvassing debate that has been advanced during the budget and on other bills. I think particularly of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who has again and again raised this particular point. What we're dealing with is a specific section. If we take every section of every bill as an opportunity to rehearse all of the rhetoric that has taken place in every other bill and in the budget, clearly the productivity of the House will diminish to zero. I ask that you call the member to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that point is well taken, and I think the hon., member now taking his place in debate recognizes that we do have a bill that has generally broad purposes to it, but we must admit that it is confined to establishing a program that deals with the public sector employer's ability to pay. Of course, there are other guidelines there, but if the member can stick to that basic concept, I'd appreciate it.

MR. LEA: I'd like to start at the back end and the employer's ability to pay. The ability to pay encompasses a number of different areas of where you can get the money to pay. Government has a number of options that they can exercise. They could go out and borrow more money and have no cuts in any programs. Then they would have the ability to pay, but it may not be an option that the government wants to take advantage of — going out to borrow more money. They could raise taxes and therefore have the ability to pay and not cut programs.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if you'll bear with me for a moment, the ability to pay is a political decision based on the facts as the governing party sees them. But I think they have to take into consideration what the people want. I guess we're confined here to the overall ability to pay. We can't go into the priorities of each program, so I won't do that. But it becomes obvious that the government does have a number of options — basically three — that they can go to. They can go to borrowing to make sure these programs stay in effect. They could go to taxation to gather all the money they need to make sure the programs stay in effect, or they could do a combination of both — borrow some and tax some in order to keep these programs in effect.

I think the question we as legislators have to ask ourselves before we vote on this section is whether or not the people of British Columbia feel that the government should make themselves able to pay for certain programs that they're cutting out — whether the revenue comes from borrowing, taxation or from a combination of both. I think the government is misreading the people if they believe that the people don't want them to do either one of those three options that I mentioned: borrow to keep some of the programs that are being cut out in effect, tax to do it, a combination of borrowing and taxing or at least — and I just mention this vaguely — change their priorities of spending in order to keep some of the programs in effect.

It seems to me that the government is saying: "We have presented our program and the purpose of it is laid out in this act. We've laid out our program. This program will affect all the services that government supplies, because this act will govern what kinds of programs will be supplied, the manner in which they are delivered, the extent to which they are delivered and the quality of them." So if the government has satisfied itself that it has cut into other programs as far as they possibly can, and we are left at the end with having to take away from some people a program that is absolutely essential, I don't believe that the people of this province would for one minute want this government not to borrow or to tax or a combination of both to keep some of the programs that are being cut because of this bill in place. That is a matter of political evaluation.

What about the government itself, Mr. Chairman? Is the government itself saying that we, the elected representatives as the government, have made a decision that the programs — again, one like the $50 to the handicapped....

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately we're straying from the section itself, because the member will have ample opportunity to discuss that particular program during the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources. Indeed, there is not a program sponsored by the government that will not be covered in detail at some stage in the estimates. The rule of the House is that you neither repeat debate nor anticipate debate. The member is succeeding in doing both and entering into tedious and repetitious rehearsal of arguments under a section of a bill. It's entirely out of order, and I would ask that you either call the member to order or ask him to take his place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I have listened to all the points you have made and they are well taken. It would seem to me that in section 2 there is pretty wide scope for debate here, but I would ask the hon. member, who I know is quite capable of doing so, to confine himself to the specifics that are contained in section 2.

[ Page 2757 ]

MR. LEA: I'm trying to establish that the employer's ability to pay is a matter of choice. It's not something that's living and breathing on its own somewhere. The government can't say: "We have no choice. We only have the ability to pay so much." That just is not true. The government has some options. I resent that this section is written like this. "The employer's ability to pay" tries to leave the impression that the government doesn’t have a choice, either in priorities of spending or methods of raising more money if they have to. I think that is a downright misleading statement in the paragraph under "Purpose of Act." So we have established — or at least I have in my own mind — that productivity, which is one of the centrepieces of this, is not definable by the minister. He says he can't define it. He admits that, but he wants managers within the public service to carry it out to the letter. Good luck! Well, one thing about it, they won't lose their job over it, because nobody will be able to tell whether they've achieved the purpose or whether they haven't achieved the purpose, so they're perfectly free from that point of view. If there are no guidelines — there's not even a definable broad principle at work here — who's to say whether or not they're achieving productivity?

So the first part of the paragraph is absolutely ludicrous, because the government fails to define what they mean by productivity. They say it's a general principle — no rules. They say that the employer's ability to pay is one of the determinants of this section, and yet they fail to mention that they have a choice to make. It's not some outside force thrust on them; it's a choice to make. They talk about restraint and stabilized compensation in the public sector as something that is in itself good as opposed to what effect it has and whether it can be judged on the effect as opposed to the broad principle.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this bill — and more specifically section 2.1, which gives the broad outline of the bill — is not going to achieve any number of things. It couldn't possibly achieve productivity the way the minister describes it, which means he doesn't know. It can't work if you use productivity in its strict economic sense, because it doesn't apply. It doesn't fit the criteria. The whole thing is a bunch of hogwash. That's exactly what it is.

I have been waiting for a long time during this session.... After listening to the minister talk about the purpose of this act on TV, I realized — and I say this kindly — that he didn't know what he was talking about. You have to admit that as a politician it's a little savoury to realize that you're going to be able to go into the Legislature and directly ask the questions of the minister that you saw asked on television or heard raised on radio that were not answered but were skirted around. It's not our job here to let the minister skirt, and that's why I want to nail down productivity. We've nailed it down: there is no definition from the minister on it. It just makes this particular section a complete farce. It really has nothing to do with all of the other sections, except it's nice. It's a nice sentence unless you examine it and question the minister and say: "What's going on here?" I've been listening on the speaker to the minister's debate earlier, and not once has he answered a question. I have to admit, both of us are out of the broadcasting business. We've both got fairly deep voices, we round our letters off, and we can sound half-articulate if we want to get a bunch of words going together, but they have to say something in the end. I have been listening intently to the minister. I've heard a number of words, one after the other, but not once have I heard any explanation for the things that I have raised — not in the debate on this bill and not when he's been interviewed in the public media. There has been no answer, and I am forced to believe that he doesn't know anything that he's talking about, and that's a sad state of affairs for this province.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member for Prince Rupert indicates that he was listening in his office earlier today before the dinner-hour adjournment. I hope that he heard — although from his remarks it may be possible that he didn't — that when I was speaking of the public sector employer, it is, I think, far too narrow an interpretation on that term, to think only of the provincial government, and the member devoted a fair amount of his most recent remarks to the provincial government. This is not to dismiss that significant number of employees, but in the case of the provincial public service, before one moves to Crown corporations, we're speaking of plus or minus 40,000 men and women; whereas this amending act and compensation stabilization, 1982, really cover something in the neighbourhood of 210,000 to 212,000 people. The point that I was trying to make to the hon. member earlier on this very point was that there will be a variety of interpretations with respect to productivity appropriate to the agency or jurisdiction concerned. I think the member really understands that. I think he knew what I was saying when I was interviewed on this topic.

[8:45]

Speaking of productivity, I indicated a few moments ago that a minister has a view with respect to productivity in his ministry, which he and I are inclined to agree would not produce productivity in other ministries. That's the challenge in this section. That is the challenge that was contained in the guidelines of last summer — 1982. Productivity is to be taken into account. Productivity in a municipality, in terms of the managers, in terms of the elected council of that municipality, may be completely inappropriate in terms of a hospital, a hospital board of management, the administrative staff of a hospital, the senior management of a hospital. We're saying to the people who are involved in the public sector that they must consider productivity. Mr. Member, it is not — believe me — as a result of an inability to articulate it here, but quite the reverse. It's a desire that individuals and organizations in the public sector define and implement their own appropriate form of productivity increases. It is not restrictive; it is the reverse. I think the member understands that. Again, that which is appropriate in one particular community, or one hospital, may not be appropriate elsewhere. The section is saying: "You are to encourage productivity."

We've had criticism in the course of other debates, without reflecting on votes, that this is a centralist government that says: "Do as we say." Well, we're inviting the public sector employers employing 212,000 people in this province to identify the most appropriate form of productivity for their particular activity, for their particular jurisdiction, for the needs of the people who receive that particular service. It is an upfront section. It is a challenge. It is a challenge to everyone involved in senior positions in the public sector in this province to identify priorities. There was one phrase, if I can just find it quickly, that I did not use. I'm sure the member will realize that I did not say it: that we're simply saying productivity is a great thing and expecting the managers to define it to the letter. Rather we expect them to be innovative, to identify opportunities for productivity increase. That's not so difficult, Mr. Chairman. I frankly think that the managers,

[ Page 2758 ]

the elected people, and the officials in government and in the public sector, whatever form it may be, can meet that challenge.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I have to admit that when I was speaking earlier I didn't talk about the municipalities; I didn't talk about all those other things. But, Mr. Chairman, so what? It's a good argument, except it doesn't mean anything to the argument. It's just a bunch of words. It's like "upfront" and "challenge." "I know these upfront people will meet the challenge of today, and this world will be so good, and I ask all of you to join with me in this mission of mercy for the economy." My gosh! Mr. Chairman. Wasn't it a great speech? But still, nothing.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I've been listening to the debate with some interest myself, and notice there is a lot of repetition. I suspect that if the member opposite has some point of view that he wants to put across he could make an amendment or something. But repetition, I think, is out, and I wish you would remind him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The member will continue, bearing in mind....

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the minister and I have been in this House a long time. We can both handle ourselves. You don't have to worry about it. The minister's not in trouble — you know? We've been around. We're not going to lose the opposition tonight.

But I think these things are worthwhile, Mr. Chairman, because I think that the people have a right to know what the government means when they say something. It doesn't really matter.... I want to go back to the minister's statement that I didn't mention the municipalities — I didn't mention anybody else. But by not defining productivity this government will never know whether it's been reached and to what degree, if at all. If you have 100 people in a factory and they're turning out 100 washing machines a day…

AN HON. MEMBER: We've heard that already.

MR. LEA: No, you haven't.

...and all of a sudden you turn out 98 washing machines with 98 people, there has been no increase in productivity. The minister could have us believe that there are two definitions of productivity, his and the one that is commonly used in economics. Now, Mr. Chairman, there may very well be two, but there can't be the one on the one side and none on the other, and the minister's right with no definition. Let's just say it's successful, that for some unknown reason the upbeat productivity challenge to the managers in the public sector works. From what I know about productivity, that will mean that they will be putting people out of work, pure and simple, unless they plan to increase the output, which they say they have no intention of doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've heard that already.

MR. LEA: You don't seem to understand it.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I know you understand it. I know they understand it, Mr. Chairman. That's why they don't like it. Once you start getting onto something they don't like, they pop up all over the place.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I've been in this House for some time now, and the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) is quite correct in making his statement that the arguments put forward are repetitious and tedious. I would suggest that the Chairman bring this member to order and get him back on the section that we are dealing with. This is in committee. This is not discussing the bill in its principle.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The points that have been raised, of course, are reasonably well taken. The Chair would request that the hon. member for Prince Rupert confine his remarks, bearing in mind all the requirements for relevancy under our standing orders, and speak directly to section 2 of Bill 11.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the minister said that the purpose of this act, to encourage productivity, was a principle. Can we not discuss that principle then?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I suppose we are discussing the principles that are laid down in the purpose of the act. I've read this thing a number of times during the course of this debate, and all it appears to me to talk about is the purpose of this act. I don't think it says whether it's going to be achieved, how it's going to be achieved or anything like that. It gives the purpose of the act, and then it lays out so many things to achieve certain things. It doesn't say how it's to be done or what will be achieved in so doing. It is a pretty broad statement, but still and all, we must confine ourselves to the requirements of our standing orders, which stipulate that we must speak directly to the act and to the points that are contained in the particular part of the act that we're discussing. So I would suggest that that's the way we're going to have to go.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I think you're absolutely right, and I would like to say this in closing: I don't think I could have said it any better than you just did. It's going to be our secret. Never will you see what you've said in Hansard anywhere in my riding or in your own riding, but I think you have summed up this section absolutely perfectly. I don't think anybody could have done it any better, and I agree with you absolutely. It doesn't say anything. It doesn't say what it's going to do or how it's going to do it. Thank you very much. I'm finished.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I rise primarily due to the remarks that the member for Prince Rupert just made. I think he's absolutely correct. I think we could probably debate this section for the next ten hours. We've had two hours now on this particular section. We've had wide and far-ranging debate. I believe that in the interests of getting on with the business of the people of this province I should move that the question now be put.

MR. COCKE: I note, Mr. Chairman, that the Chairman is not in the chair.

[ Page 2759 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the acting Chairman is aware of the point that has been brought to his attention by the member for New Westminster. Hon. member for Omineca, the acting Chairman is not, under the rules of this House, allowed to accept the motion that you have put forward.

MR. ROSE: I won't, I don't think, cause the member for Omineca much anguish, because I don't intend to go on a long time about this.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope not.

MR. ROSE: Unless provoked. Then I might go on a long time. I might go on a very long time.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, you can; it doesn't matter. You can move it an hour from now if you can stay awake. It would be nice to have you in the House....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we get on to speaking to section 2?

MR. ROSE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I too have been reading the purpose of this act, and I find that it seems to be internally contradictory, especially from a free enterprise government that feels its rewards should be monetary, and that people are motivated by that sort of thing rather than by non-monetary forms of encouragement. So when I read that the purpose of this act is "to establish a program that will encourage productivity," which we can't define, and neither can the Minister of Education or the Minister of Finance — "and restrain and stabilize compensation in the public sector...." Now, why would anybody want to encourage productivity unless they were going to get some reward out of it? They're not going to get any reward out of it, they're going to get laid off. If they prove they're more efficient.... The faster they do that, the faster they prove they're really redundant. So it seems to me the whole thing is contradictory or working at cross-purposes.

Anyway, what we're going to do is to encourage productivity, whatever that means. In schools I think it means fewer teachers will teach larger and larger classes and there will be less and less individualized instruction. There will be fewer and fewer firemen jumping up on roofs to put out flames, but they will have larger hoses that can squirt faster, or taller ladders, or some such other kind of nonsense, which this whole thing is. The only thing you can do is to laugh at it, if it weren't so cruel.

"…while ensuring that the paramount consideration for determining compensation is the public sector employee's ability to pay." I will not be tediously repetitious, I promise, in this bill or other bills, or from previous speakers, but what we do know, and I doubt that it's been said before, is that the ability to pay on the part of the government is a political choice. We may agree not to pay schoolteachers, but we may agree to pay more coal-miners or more railway workers; we may do it one way or the other. So the ability to pay really is a choice by the government, and nobody else.

[9:00]

There is no such thing as the ability to pay, because if we don't have the totality of ability to pay — and the government will rush to agree with me on this — you have to cut something. That's what the government says. If you don't have revenue, if you've killed the economy, and you don't have a consumer-led recovery — and you don't; every day proves that you don't — then you're not going to have the revenue. Therefore you're not going to have the ability to pay. So if you don't have the ability to pay, as my friend said, you've got a couple of choices: you can raise taxes or you can cut workers. If we're going to encourage productivity that means one of two things: either a larger amount of whatever you want done — teaching, learning, whatever — is done by fewer people, or the people you have will produce more of what you are trying to achieve. I don't see that there's any other kind of definition for it. Or you're going to overcapitalize. The member for North Vancouver–Capilano used to say there were too many boats chasing too few fish. If you put in larger boats the fish don't increase, but you have an increased capitalization; therefore each boat per dollar invested catches fewer fish. That isn't an example of productivity, that's lowered productivity. Although each boat catches more fish, per dollar it's fewer fish.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Productivity is a very difficult thing to define, but it's a damned good thing on a platform. Everybody is for productivity, very positively favours productivity. They don't like the kind of a situation I've seen in some South American or Caribbean countries, where you have six guys on the back of a pickup unloading half a load of T-shirts. That isn't good productivity.

MR. LEA: It's almost as good as "upbeat" and "challenge."

MR. ROSE: What I'm trying to say is that if you're not going to do it through financial means, you're going to encourage managers to encourage productivity and to restrain and stabilize compensation, which means you're going to encourage this kind of productivity — whatever the hell that is — but pay them less or the same. All right, if you're not going to do it through money — which is the prime motivator, according to that side over there — you're going to have to do it through something else. Now, how are you going to do it? There are a lot of traditional means. You can make somebody a sub-manager of the ribbon counter, like Woolworth's does; you know, assistant manager of the ribbon counter. That means he doesn't need to belong to the union, and you can work him 15 hours a day because he has to check the cash at night. Or you can do it in other ways. You can give somebody a coloured telephone, or perhaps an office with a rug on the floor. You can give him hugs and kisses.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Is this relevant?

MR. ROSE: And when I was suggesting hugs and kisses, I wasn't directing my remarks at the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that's in the section either.

MR. ROSE: I'm talking about productivity and attempting to develop the argument that if you're not going to pay

[ Page 2760 ]

people more to produce more — and section 2 says that's what you want to do; that that's the main objective of the bill — then you're going to have to do it in some other way. And you have to be flexible, because you're not going to do it the same way in one area as in another, because if you did it would lead to uniformity, inflexibility and centralization. Of course we don't want to do that, except that we want Mr. Peck to centralize and make certain that that kind of thing is stratified.

So what I'm trying to find out from the minister is, if he's not going to pay them more, what means is he going to use to encourage productivity? It seems to me there is either the carrot or the stick. The stick is the threat of being fired. The carrot is more money or some non-monetary reward. Perhaps a trip to Hawaii.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pride.

MR. ROSE: Pride? Yes, I think that's an important factor. A good old pat on the back, some other means.

That's really about all I wanted to say on that subject. I wanted to ask a question, and I'll just summarize briefly for the minister so there is no question about this. "The purpose of this act is to establish a program that will encourage productivity." Now, we don't know what that is. That's number one. "And restrain and stabilize compensation in the public service." That means we're not going to pay people to produce more in a given economic unit. "While ensuring that the paramount consideration for determining compensation is the public sector employer's ability to pay." We know that's a crock of garbage. So it's a political choice, because you can encourage in one area and discourage in the other. So how will productivity be encouraged? That is the question.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of being repetitious, I want to restate for the member for Coquitlam-Moody that consciously, deliberately, we have not attempted to define productivity by one narrow model. The member for Prince Rupert finds that amusing.

MR. LEA: I do. I find it hilarious.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's because you don't understand.

MR. ROSE: We're listening, we're listening. Go ahead. Let her fly.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The fact is, Mr. Chairman, there are opportunities that could not be enunciated in this House tonight with respect to productivity being introduced in the public sector. I made that point before the dinner hour and since the dinner hour, and I'm more saddened than embarrassed that the member for Prince Rupert finds that humorous. That shows the narrowness of his point of view in this matter.

MR. LEA: Upbeat and challenge!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Upfront. You can't even remember the phrase that you laugh at.

If it is a hospital in Smithers versus a school district on the lower mainland versus a municipality on northern Vancouver Island, there will be opportunities for the decision-makers — sorry to use a trite phrase, Mr. Chairman — in that particular activity to say: "This is how we think productivity can be introduced into our particular responsibility, our area of responsibility."

The other thing that I think speaks volumes about this is that with respect to productivity in the guidelines which have been released in draft form — and the press was interested in this; I think it's extremely significant in the context of section 2 — there is no upper limit for the productivity factor in a compensation plan. That has nothing to do with the ribbon counter or the coloured telephone or a larger fire-hose; it is saying to the employers and to the employees — 212,000 strong in this province — productivity has to be given greater recognition in this particular time in our development; find ways in which it will work for your particular circumstance, rather than by directive stated in 15 or 20 lines from Victoria. I've said it before and I state it once again.

MR. ROSE: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that what the minister has said, cutting across all ministries and all sectors of the public service, is that productivity by his definition is two squares of Purex instead of three.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm curious to know how you measure productivity in service areas, for example. I'm talking about jobs that have to do with....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your microphone please, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. It's just that I never need it when I'm speaking to my kids, even when they're two blocks away. It's just the same here.

I'm kind of curious. Would the minister advise me: how do you measure productivity in service areas, for example? I'm thinking of people who, for example, work with battered women.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think we broached this point earlier....

MS. BROWN: Oh, you did?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. We had to admit that that type of discussion might be better covered under a particular minister's estimates. It would be hard for the Minister of Finance, under this bill and in this section, to answer that type of detailed question. It has been discussed.

MS. BROWN: Well, Mr. Chairman, how can one decide whether to accept the concept of productivity if one doesn't know how it's going to be applied? You know, the minister, in issuing his press release on this section and on the bill as a whole, said that there were two key thrusts to his amendment: one was consideration of the public sector employer's ability to pay; the other was to do with the public employees' paycheques depending on greater productivity. Now if I don't know how the productivity measurement is going to be applied, how can I decide whether it's going to work or not? I mean, I can see that if you measure productivity by how many miles of road are blacktopped in a week or a month, or something like that, that is easy. But in areas which are not as visible and not as easy to measure, it would help if the

[ Page 2761 ]

minister would give some guidance as to what kind of criteria he would be looking at.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver South on a point of order.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, we've heard all these arguments before, and standing order 43 says "no tedious repetition."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. As I've pointed out to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, that argument has been advanced earlier during debate on this section by other members, and all members in the committee had to conclude that it would be virtually impossible for the minister to enter into and discuss the administrative actions of every ministry.

MS. BROWN: The minister has indicated a willingness to respond. I wonder if we would allow him the courtesy of doing so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister may wish to.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I was going to observe much as you did, that earlier this evening, after the adjournment for dinner, I indicated that I did not think that it was appropriate for me. One example inquired about was education. Now the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has raised another example. It is not appropriate, and I wonder how many times I've been on my feet to make that point. This member has not spoken before this evening on this section, but the debate is becoming tedious and repetitious in that we could have literally hundreds of examples asked of me in the debate on section 2 of this bill as to how productivity would be introduced. I say, once again, Mr. Chairman, that productivity will be identified as a key factor in compensation; it will be taken into consideration by the commissioner. It will prove very easy to introduce in some instances, less easy — more challenging, if you wish to put it another way — in other instances. But we are saying that the purpose is, among other things, increased productivity, and I don't think that's so difficult for the members opposite. I frankly don't know how I can assist the committee further when specific inquiries are made as to a program activity or an activity that is of interest to a specific member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for that explanation. I have one other question. When we look at the statistics, for example, in the public sector we find that again, although 51 percent of the people who work in this sector are female, they tend to be congregated at the bottom of the pay scale. Now would the productivity concept be one that would be used in terms of helping them achieve the goal of, say, equal pay for work of equal value, or would their efforts in that regard be hindered in any way by the application of the productivity concept?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, if I'm not out of order — and I don't believe I am in terms of the purpose of the act — from the outset it was clearly the intention of the government last year, with the first compensation stabilization program, to encourage the possibility of lower-paid workers, male or female, in the province to make it possible for them to receive greater increases than their better-paid associates. This is a basic reason why employees are dealt with under the CSP in groups rather than as individuals. I would think the member opposite would applaud that, notwithstanding her resistance to the essential theme of the public sector compensation restraint. It has worked. Most noticeably, it's to be found in some large hospitals: at St. Paul's in Vancouver, the average increase was 7.19 percent — I'm speaking of a past increase under the program — for the average. Lower-paid workers received 24 percent, supervisory staff received 6 and executives received 5.85. I think that example would assist the member in understanding that flexibility is inherent in compensation stabilization — last year it was, and certainly it is continued as a purpose in this amending act.

[9:15]

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 7

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

Section 3 approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment identified as 3.1 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

On section 4.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) thinks we've already passed this. Let him go back to sleep, or wherever he is.

I did discuss this at some length in second reading, and the minister did respond, but at this time I would like to move an amendment to delete clause (b) of section 4. The effect of the amendment would be to.... Should I wait for you or should I talk about it while you're thinking?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, please. One moment, and we'll have a decision.

MR. STUPICH: Well, the effect of the amendment is to remove the 24-month limitation. We still have nine months to

[ Page 2762 ]

go, since the Compensation Stabilization Act was assented to on June 25, 1982. I think it's too soon to admit that the government's total economic program is a complete and abject failure and to say at this point in time that it has failed to the extent that we have to say we don't know when the government's program is going to be able to have any positive effect on the economy. So let's leave the 24-month period in for the time being. There's plenty of time to review that next spring, in the event that we all know by then that the government has failed in its program to try to turn around the economy of the province of British Columbia. So let's not admit it's a failure. Let's remove this 24-month limitation. Next spring, if the government insists, they can bring that forward again and admit at that time how much they've failed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I just have a bit of a problem here.

MR. STUPICH: Perhaps I can help you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't find "24 consecutive months" either in the amending bill before us or in the main CSP act.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, 24 months is under (a), hon. member. That's in the act.

MR. STUPICH: No, it's 9(2)....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't want to be difficult, but I have it under (a) in the CSP act.

MR. STUPICH: It is in the CSP act, but in the bill before us what we're doing is repealing subsection (2) of the CSP act, which includes the reference to 24 months.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Got it! The amendment's in order.

MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I trust the government will accept it.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the government will not accept the amendment, even though the member has indicated reasons why. Fundamental to the compensation stabilization program and the budget of 1983 was the indication that the program would be extended indefinitely. I believe that it will be a continuing part of public sector compensation, not only in this province but in other parts of the country in time to come.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm just wondering whether I heard the minister correctly — "fundamental to the 1983 budget"? It's my understanding that the budget runs to March 31, 1984. Is he telling us that the budget for the year ending March 31, 1984, is intended to extend beyond that date — that we won't bother having any budgets any more?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, not at all. My choice of words was poor. It's fundamental to the introduction of the 1983 budget and the compensation stabilization program. Fundamental to budget day was the indication that compensation stabilization would continue. I apologize for giving incorrect information to the committee a few moments ago. It was not intentional.

MR. STUPICH: I just wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether the minister will go one step further then and admit at this time that the government's program has been a failure and that's why it's necessary to extend the time-limit indefinitely.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Quite the contrary, Mr. Chairman. We believe that the program is a keystone to the recovery that is underway in this province.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this takes us back to yesterday's question period and today's question period. All of the evidence, with the exception of a little bit introduced by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), is to the contrary. The minister said, when the Compensation Stabilization Act was being debated last year, it would be necessary to do this for only two years because this was going to lead us on the road to recovery. The minister is now saying that the program is working so well that we are going to have to keep it going indefinitely — we have to keep these tight controls on indefinitely because we see no other way out.

To me, the minister is admitting a failure although he is not prepared to put it in those words.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, just to follow up the debate that has been taking place, I have one very simple question to the minister. He thumped his desk and said, yes, the Compensation Stabilization Act is pushing the province to the road to recovery. Would he give us some examples of why and how the Compensation Stabilization Act is moving us to recovery? It might help us in deciding how to vote on this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on your amendment, hon. member, and....

HON. MR. CURTIS: I indicated earlier that we are not accepting the amendment, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps after the amendment is dealt with, I could answer the member's question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We haven't called for a vote on the amendment, and I presume members are still speaking to it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is trying to keep the government honest. In other bills at the outset they have had sunset clauses and have removed the sunset clauses. In one they have reinserted it. As I recall that was an education bill — finance (interim) etc. What we are talking about here is giving the minister an opportunity to at least introduce a sunset clause into this bill — there was one in the original — which means that at a certain point in time the bill is no longer relevant. This kind of artificial manipulation of people and the economy has never proven satisfactory. They tried it in the Dirty Thirties and it didn't work. I'm just suggesting that he should leave a sunset clause in, and that's what the hon. member for Nanaimo is suggesting with this amendment.

[ Page 2763 ]

[9:30]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 7

NAYS — 29

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

On section 4.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, since the amendment wasn't accepted we simply have to oppose this section, which really states that for all time, as far as this administration is concerned, until there is some change in administration or change on the part of that government, the cabinet will determine compensation stabilization guidelines. They may determine them as often as they like, as frequently as they like during the year, every year. Bargaining will cease to exist, or cease to have any meaning — it will be a mere charade as far as wages are concerned. It will be the cabinet that will set the guidelines; it can change the guidelines at will, from day to day, week to week, month to month or whatever. That kind of legislation has to be opposed.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, during discussion of our amendment the minister was asked to give examples of how the Compensation Stabilization Act has improved the economy. He assured me he would give me some during the major part of the debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I was partially on my feet just a few moments ago to cover that off. The compensation stabilization program introduced in 1982 has proven to be, in the view of the government, and I think in the view of many observers — I believe that I am speaking to the section, because it deals with the extension — eminently successful. There has been a very high approval rate under the guidelines rather than through the regulations: 87 percent approved initially with a further 10 percent approved later.

Speaking to the economy, the level of public sector settlements has gone from around 13 percent in early 1982 to less than 4 percent now. For every drop of a percentage point in public sector settlements there is a $45 million saving, initially to public sector employers but ultimately to the taxpayers, whether at the municipal level or provincial or whatever.

The other point I would like to make is that there was that fundamental need to bring public sector and private sector settlements more into balance. That had not been the case for some years. That balance has been achieved. That balance is a very precious thing to maintain. That is one of the key reasons for the extension.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MRS. DAILLY: I thank the minister for answering, but I have a further question for him. He has pointed out how this has saved money. I wonder if he would follow that up by telling us how it has improved the economic recovery. What examples do we have? I presume that is the object of this whole act.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think it was the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who is in his place now, earlier and debating another section, but it is probably apropos here. As he saw it, there were three options open to government: borrow more, increase taxes or a combination of the two.

MR. LEA: Or a change of priority.

HON. MR. CURTIS: But you dealt specifically with those, Mr. Member. Clearly the beneficial results to the economy are in a reduced burden on the taxpayer, who has said quite clearly: "Look, we've sent you all the money we have at this particular point in time."

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, just one word. I noted that the minister was comparing private and public sector settlements. The private sector, without all the falderal and bully tactics, have settlements that are running lower than the public sector. So what is the minister talking about? The fact of the matter is, if the minister would let the economy dictate the kind of settlements that are there and are available, then it can be done. But you see, Mr. Chairman, these people don't understand that. They're afraid to bargain.

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 7

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

[9:45]

On section 5.

[ Page 2764 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I won't be long on this, but I wanted to make sure the minister and I agree as to the implication of section 5. Firstly, it refers to public sector employees as defined by the Compensation Stabilization Act, and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) informed the House some weeks or months ago that that totalled some 300,000 employees. I admit that the government is hoping to reduce that by 25 percent — to put 62,500 people on unemployment insurance or social assistance. So we are talking about all of those people. Their compensation will be determined by the specific employer's ability to pay, and the ability to pay will be controlled by cabinet either directly by allocating funds to the particular agency or employer and thereby limiting the ability to pay, or by its influence on the board of directors of every one of the Crown corporations that the government controls either by appointing directors or by having its own directors at meetings. So when we say "ability to pay" we are really saying that the cabinet will determine just what will be the compensation guidelines for every one of the entities that is involved in the employment of some 300,000 people less 25 percent.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member for Nanaimo, this is a new section to the act, and it spells out the importance in the program of the consideration of ability to pay. I'm not sure that I would place the same complexion on it that the member for Nanaimo has in describing it. But that responsibility rests with both parties: employees and management — if I may use the term; it may be a council or whatever — as well as the arbitrators, as we discussed in an earlier section. I think I used examples before the dinner break with respect to some instances where the executive council, as such, has relatively little involvement in the final revenue level of a particular agency. I did deal with that in debate on section 2, ability to pay. As I say, the member opposite will place his complexion on the section, but it says to both parties and to the arbitrators or an arbitrator, as the case may be: "You must take into account ability to pay." That is correct.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take up the time of the House now reading all of the agencies and Crown corporations and municipalities and school boards and all those institutions that are included in this definition of public sector employees. Would the minister give me one of these organizations or agencies or whatever that is not controlled by the executive council as to its revenue?

HON. MR. CURTIS: As I described earlier, Mr. Chairman, virtually any municipality, which, while it receives revenue-sharing grants introduced by this government, does decide, through a variety of taxes, the level of the burden that will be placed on the people who reside or do business in that municipality. I think that has been debated at length. So that would give you 142 examples right there.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, is there any one of the municipalities that is not required to submit its budget to the minister for approval? Not to the Minister of Finance — to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and hence to the executive council.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No municipalities are required to submit budgets to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I would have you note that the minister said, "to the Minister of Finance." But budgets are all submitted to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. They all have to be approved by bylaw. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, at last count, was a member of the executive council, and I believe he confers occasionally with the Minister of Finance.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the section is part of the parcel that we see before us. We know who calls the shots with respect to ability to pay: the Minister of Finance together with the Treasury Board and their control, of course, over the Minister of Municipal Affairs. They will decide just exactly what the availability of cash will be as far as their separate and different agencies are concerned and therefore place the arbitrator, the employees and the employers in a position where they must do the bidding of the government. Centralization all the way is what we see here. If you can't do it any other way then do it with the full power and authority of government.

I would just like to suggest to the Minister of Finance that if something like this were introduced in the federal House and applied to the provincial authority there would be heck to pay. Can you imagine those Socreds jumping and thundering and screaming their little heads off? But it's quite different when they use their muscle on a lower level of government. Then it's okay, because they have all the virtue, all the sense, all the wisdom. We just don't believe it. Certainly nothing that has happened in the past two years has given us any confidence whatsoever in this government to call the shots as they have decided to call them: widening their sphere, increasing their muscle and eventually affecting the lives of every British Columbian. It's a shame. You made a mistake. You should admit it and start all over again. But you won't do that, will you? You've got this precious mandate. Mandate or no mandate, I would like to go back to that example I used. I can just imagine the thunder if another level of government imposed the kind of restrictions on this government that this government deigns to move on lower levels and agencies.

MS. BROWN: What this section is saying is that it is not taking into account the commitment made in an earlier section which had to do with productivity. It also isn't saying anything about establishing priorities. It seems to me that when you're working out compensation those three things have to be taken into account, not just ability to pay — we all know that you can't pay if the money isn't there — but certainly in terms of establishing the priorities as to who gets paid and how much and what programs or people get priority. That, in addition to productivity, is best worked out through bargaining, cooperation, dialogue and working together. Instead of that, this bill — and this section in particular — concentrates all those decisions, control and power in the hands of the government. I think that's unfortunate.

Section 5 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

[ Page 2765 ]

NAYS — 7

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

Section 6 approved.

[10:00]

On section 7.

MR. STUPICH: If I may read the explanatory note, this section "makes it clear that the compensation regulations of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may limit increases in, maintain or reduce compensation in the public sector." This section says that from now on, with no time limit at all, cabinet will have absolute authority — I think the minister came awfully close to admitting that the decisions are going to made in the executive council — to set the wage rates for some 300,000 public sector employees. Yet in other legislation the government has said that they intend to let bargaining between government employees and the various employment agencies continue. They have said that bargaining will still be going on and mean something under the other legislation. The only thing left to bargain is wages and working conditions, and this section says that even that is out because the cabinet will have the absolute authority to impose increases or decreases or to keep salaries level. It's a very reprehensible section. There might be some rationalization to have it in effect for a limited period of 24 months, but certainly we have to oppose, to the limit of our ability, anything that gives that much authority to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's important for Hansard and for the record to point out that we have moved now to the portion of the act that deals with the regulations. This is modelled precisely as the 1982 act was modelled, with guidelines and regulations. It is, in my view, a tribute to public sector employers and employees that thus far 983 plans have been approved since the introduction of the program, and none have been under the regulations.

We spoke last year of "jump safely or be pushed," and I tried in the interval to think of a phrase that might not provoke some reaction on the other side, but apparently that might not be happening tonight. The guidelines are the mechanism under which the parties can negotiate and reach conclusions. The regulations are there if they are required. I didn't offer that as idle flattery to the system, but I think it speaks again for the program as introduced in 1982. No one has been forced, under the regulations. There were those three or four senior officials in Surrey who had their salaries rolled back, but that wasn't as a regulation. The fact of the matter is that legislation of this kind has to have the other force, and those are the amendments that are placed before us in section 7 and subsequent sections.

I trust that we will continue as we have, under the guidelines, rather than under any regulations.

MR. STUPICH: I feel the minister is proving my case. The system, as he describes it, has been working up to this time. So now we say that something that's been working has to be tampered with. We have to say to people who have lived under this system, knowing that it was going to be for a 24-month period — that by then there would be no longer a need for this kind of program — that "you've proven you can work with this program for 18 months and the reward is that you're going to live under this program from now on."

Beyond that we've said that up to this point in time we've had the authority to limit increases. We're now saying to them that we may impose decreases. I suggest to you that the program is being dramatically and drastically changed. To say that it has worked successfully in the past 18 months — when it was put to people as something of an emergency situation with which they were going to have to live for two years and that there would be limits to increases in pay — is one thing, but to say to them now that they are going to live from this day on under the threat of cabinet regulations, subject to change daily or weekly — changes that may impose up to 5 percent decreases with no sunset clause at all — is presenting a program that will not have the success rate up to this point in time and will destroy the admitted effectiveness of the program. I am concerned that the government is so anxious to tamper with something they feel has been working well. If it has been working as well as the minister says it has, why on earth is he changing it to this extent?

MS. BROWN: I want to suggest, as my colleague from Nanaimo stated, that it doesn't seem that, if this act goes through, we will have any place in our system any more for collective bargaining. I am not reflecting on another vote or talking about another piece of legislation, but when we look at the package — those three pieces of legislation, Bills 3, 11 and 26 — we see that all we need is Ed Peck to decide on all the wages of all of the public sector workers everywhere. Earlier in the bill we've had a statement about productivity and how that's going to be taken into account in terms of deciding compensation. We find that this is all nonsense. In fact you may be penalized simply on the whim of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, regardless of whether your productivity is up or not or whether you may have negotiated anything in a contract. This is very dangerous.

I wonder if the minister has taken into account the impact of this kind of legislation on the business community. People who never know from one month to another whether their wage is going to be rolled back are not going to be secure consumers of either goods or services. Everyone is going to start hoarding, because they never know when their salary is going to be rolled back by 5 percent one month and then two or three months later by an additional 5 percent again. I think that that is not a good way to treat people who work either in the public or in the private sector.

One of the things that the minister likes to talk about is that he is now bringing to the public sector the same insecurities that workers in the private sector have had to live with all along. First, I don't think that's correct. Second, I don't think that's good enough even if it were correct. What we should be doing, if for no other reason that it's good for business, is making the worker secure in terms of her or his employment and making people feel that they can spend their wages, that they can go out and purchase services and consumer goods without worrying that they will turn around three or four months later and find that a decision which was negotiated by the municipality in terms of paying them $100

[ Page 2766 ]

a month has been reversed by the government and that they are going to experience a $5 a month cut in their salary.

I know that one of the cornerstones of the theories that govern the government's decision is that you don't do impact studies on the economy. You simply go ahead and cut and slash and do what you perceive needs to be done. But it seems to me that if the minister is really serious about recovery, he should start looking at all of the signposts, because clearly the increase in the number of people out of work and the number of bankruptcies in the province should be an indication to him that something isn't right. The thing that isn't right and isn't working is that the insecurity of people in the public sector and the spinoff from those workers is being reflected in the economy at large.

Business is the one that suffers — not just small business, but even department stores and other commercial enterprises that service the community at large. They're the ones who are being victimized by the insecurity of the public sector worker. This can be directly traced to this kind of legislation. I think that subsection (c), in particular, which is a section that allows the government to.... The members on the government benches can smile and relax and feel secure because their wages, they think, won't be rolled back for the next three or four years, but I think they should start thinking about the working people they represent. When I stand on my feet to speak against this section, it's not because I'm worried that my wage is going to be rolled back, but I can see the devastation that's being wrought in Burnaby-Edmonds in terms of the number of small businesses going bankrupt simply because people are no longer spending their money. They never know from one day to another whether they're going to be laid off, terminated, redeployed or whatever other euphemism the government chooses to apply to them. Even if they are secure, they never know, when this section goes into law, whether they're going to find that the settlement that they have negotiated is going to be rolled back 5 percent by this government. That insecurity does impact on the community at large. I think the minister should take that into account and certainly should respond to it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: One of the very admirable aspects of the compensation stabilization program of last year, which is continued into this year, is the range. We started with a range in February 1982, and altered it in July 1982. It is altered so far as the draft regulations and guidelines are concerned now. Quite contrary to what the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has said, I think this does introduce an element of stability. I also would remind her of the earlier conversation with respect to fairness toward lower-paid workers, male and female. The range, which gives the commissioner and the parties flexibility, can be altered as economic circumstances permit — not dictate, but permit. I think most of us in this province would like to see the situation whereby the economy has recovered to the extent that we don't have to have a minus factor. The fact is that under the present circumstances, we do. Again, I point out to the committee that these are the regulations. I hope they don't have to be used.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm in the opposition, but I enjoy listening to the minister more than his colleagues do, apparently.

I want to point out in preface to asking a question that the minister who brought in this bill and is now debating it with us is the same minister who, I understand, recently announced that the cap is going to be taken off utility price increases. So I have a question for the minister. How can he consider this a fair and equitable piece of legislation when he is restricting the wages of one sector of our society at the same time that he is not restricting the price increases which they are going to have to pay for?

[10:15]

HON. MR. CURTIS: I don't know how I can answer that question under the restrictions imposed on anyone in debate on a section of a bill that deals with compensation stabilization. I would be happy to take the question in question period or in estimates, insofar as my ministry is concerned.

MS. BROWN: I wonder if the minister would explain to me exactly the ramification of subsection (c), where you're taking out "increases in." It now says: "limitations on compensation."

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think it is necessary to look at section 17, part 3, of last year's Bill 28. Clause (c) deals with the changes throughout the section, allowing for decreases as well as increases in compensation. I think it is important to note that clause (c), clause (d) and clause (e) are related.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this is the section that I was expressing some concern about, because if I am interpreting it correctly, which the minister just told me I was, this section allows the minister to impose decreases. Is that it? Is that what the minister is saying?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, that is not a matter for the Minister of Finance, whoever that may be, to impose. Again, these are the regulations rather than the guidelines, and it permits the commissioner to review a compensation plan and to introduce a negative factor, as was announced much earlier on. This is the action section with respect to the commissioner should he find it necessary to put a group under the regulations rather than under the guidelines, and to do so in a minus factor of up to 5 percent.

MS. BROWN: The terms "negative factor" and "minus factor" mean a 5 percent decrease — that's all I was trying to clarify, Mr. Chairman. It is this right now being given under this particular subsection that, I think, creates the insecurity that I was discussing earlier, and it is this particular subsection (c) that I was addressing my remarks to in speaking about the section in its entirety. I don't know whether my colleague is going to move that amendment or not but.... Do you want me to move it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Be my guest.

MS. BROWN: I'd like to move an amendment which I think you have at the table.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't see it but I'll look.

MS. BROWN: What the amendment says is that section 7 should be amended by deleting clause (c). The reasons for that were embodied in the comments which I made earlier, so I won't repeat myself.

[ Page 2767 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I heard the member speaking of subsection (c), but your amendment says "by deleting clause (b)."

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, this is the previous one we dealt with. We'll correct it here, hon. member. The correction reads....

AN HON. MEMBER: We've heard that before!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Trust me. I have it under the name of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds to amend section 7 by deleting clause (c). We have it now. The amendment is in order.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 7

NAYS — 28

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

Section 7 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 7

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

On section 8.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this section again brings up doing away with the 24-month limit. I sincerely believe this is a bad mistake on the part of the government. I think it is going to work against the success of the whole program. I have tried unsuccessfully to use my arguments on the minister up to this point. A limit could be imposed at any time; it needn't be done now. I would strongly urge the government to reconsider its position with respect to this 24-month deadline and move an amendment to delete section 8, to give them an opportunity to take a second look at the 24-month limitation feature. I realize it would affect other parts of the bill, but I move that amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, with the greatest regret, I must declare the motion out of order, as it is a straight negation of the section itself. I so rule.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, just to reiterate what we have said on a previous section about the whole question of the limitations, they were placed there in good faith in the first place. They were accepted by much of the community in good faith, and now the limitations are removed. The fact of the matter is that there is another minister in this government who in fact reintroduced a sunset clause, and it strikes me that the Minister of Finance, with a little grace, could institute a sunset clause in this particular piece of legislation. It is far-reaching. It says that negotiations are no longer possible; that we are no longer dealing with freedoms, we are dealing with arbitrary decisions made by an arbitrary government. I feel that the 24-month aspect of the bill should be left in.

[10:30]

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I think there must have been a typographical error here, because this section says: "A decision or order made by the commissioner is final and binding." There's no appeal, absolutely no recourse whatsoever.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: It seems to me that for it to be fair, even-handed and just, there has to be an appeal procedure. I would like the minister to assure me that somewhere in the act I have missed that there is an appeal procedure. Would he show me what section it is? Is the appeal procedure hidden somewhere else in the act?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied that there is an opportunity here for the commissioner's rulings to be upset for good and sufficient reasons — as an example, denial of natural justice. I am not legally trained, but I have been informed that this is a relatively mild, privative section, and I believe it ensures that those matters could be taken further where it is clearly demonstrated that the commissioner has denied natural justice. So there is appeal.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I just can't resist this. I was on that side of the House and the minister was on this side

[ Page 2768 ]

of the House when I advanced the same argument with respect to Bill 42. I accept what he says, because I know it to be true. He didn't accept it when I said it, although I believe at that time he knew it to be true.

Sections 11 through 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

MR. STUPICH: We're doing well. We're at section 16, and I have an amendment to delete section 16, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. STUPICH: I'm opposed to retroactivity in general, although I support it on occasion when it's necessary. In this case I don't believe it's necessary. I don't believe it adds anything at all to the legislation to make this particular bill retroactive, and I would urge the government to accept this amendment.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, the Chair must rule that amendment out of order on the grounds that it is a direct negative.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm speaking in opposition to this section. As I said before, I don't want to repeat any of the arguments I used earlier, but this section is not only to be retroactive, but even a decrease can be retroactive. In other words, an award can have been made and been in place between July 7 and now, and then it can be reversed up to a maximum of minus 5 percent. What happens to that money? Do they have to repay that? Is it necessary for them to repay that if the decision is made that they have been awarded 5 percent more than they should have received?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, no. The circumstance which the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has outlined could not happen. If a plan has been filed with the commissioner before the date that the guidelines and regulations carry, then it is to be accepted under the old rules. The date to which I refer is October 11. That was the date on which we released the amended compensation stabilization guidelines and regulations. They are now in draft form, but if the member might care to examine page 3 of the covering release, it indicates in the last paragraph that the amendments to the guidelines and regulations will come into effect on October 11, 1983. We looked at this very carefully. It was one of a series of bills presented on budget day. There is an element of continuity required. But the commissioner cannot reach back into July 7 or 8 with a plan that was accepted by him through that interval.

MS. BROWN: I understand that the commissioner cannot reclaim moneys already paid, but can the commissioner overturn a plan?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, he cannot, not if he has received it. And there are a number which fall into that circumstance.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to try another amendment on the same section, line 3: delete all words after "act" — that's the second to the last word in line 3 — and add "shall take effect upon proclamation."

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would appear that we're going to have a problem with this one as well, and I'm sorry I have to rule it out of order.

MR. STUPICH: Well, I give up.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, there's no question that as far as we're concerned, whether or not the amendments that we might put forward may negate what the government wants to do with respect to this section, the fact is that we would like to negate what the government wants to do with this section.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Precisely what I'm going to do. And I'll speak against it too — interminably if you keep that up.

In any event, Mr. Chairman....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Do you need some sleep? I'm just as bright and chipper as ever.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You look that way too, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Thank you. I'm feeling fine.

Mr. Chairman, the retroactivity practised here and elsewhere is becoming habitual with this government. Every move they make, it would appear to me, they want to make retroactive moves. It's mainly because of the fact that there's no planning ahead. There never has been any planning ahead. Everything is moving from chaos to chaos, one step closer to the edge of the precipice, or the edge of the abyss. In any event, this section is offensive. As the member for Nanaimo said, on rare occasions when there is an emergency that demands that this kind of thing take effect, that's one thing. But if you look at the bills that this Legislature has been debating, not only this year but for the past two or three years, we have been debating this very kind of section where retroactivity is invoked in order to clean up the mess that they have created prior to a situation.

Mr. Chairman, we oppose the entire proposition here, but we particularly oppose retroactivity as we see it in section 16. We will be prepared, as the minister suggests, to vote against it.

MS. BROWN: I need some more clarification from the minister about just how retroactive this section is going to be, because it says that a guideline under these two pieces of legislation may be retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect on or after July 7. That means it can go back further than July 7. Is that what this section is actually saying? It may be retroactive to whatever extent is necessary to give it effect on or after July 7. Does the section say that the guidelines made prior to July 7 can be…? Will the minister explain? It says in the notes that it's "self-explanatory," and obviously it's not.

[ Page 2769 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, let me quote section 16:

"A guideline made under section 9 of the Compensation Stabilization Act, as amended by this act, or a compensation regulation made under section 17 of the Compensation Stabilization Act, as amended by this act, may be retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect on and after July 7, 1983, but no guideline or compensation regulation may, six months after the date the Lieutenant-Governor assents to this act, be made retroactive."

So I state again that following the same pattern as in 1982, the draft guidelines and regulations which were released on October 11 and which contain the numerical limits become effective on October 11. Now they're draft, and we invite public participation and comment. But as amended, or as issued in draft form, they will become effective on the 11th day of this month. So I can't be of any more assistance to the member on that point. The retroactivity is in the bill; it's not in the numbers, the percentages, which have been issued as of yesterday.

Section 16 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 8

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

[10:45]

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 11, Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:50 p.m.