[ Page 11701 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 11701

Oral Questions

Presentation of 1991-92 budget. Mr. Harcourt –– 11701

Government rental of office space. Ms. Marzari –– 11701

Mr. Clark

Water quality. Mr. Chalmers –– 11702

Public sector bargaining registrar. Mr. Sihota –– 11703

Export of water. Mr. Cashore –– 11703

Loans to Social Credit ridings. Mr. Loenen –– 11703

Export of water. Mr. Gabelmann –– 11703

Presenting Reports –– 11704

job Protection Act (Bill 83). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 11704

Compensation Fairness Act (Bill 82). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 11705

Mr. Clark –– 11708

Hon. S. Hagen –– 11711

Ms. Cull –– 11712

Mr. Couvelier –– 11713

Mr. G. Janssen –– 11716

Hon. J. Jansen –– 11718

Ms. A. Hagen –– 11719

Mr. Rose –– 11720

Hon. Mrs. Gran –– 11722

Mr. Miller –– 11724

Hon. Mr. Rabbitt –– 11725

Mr. Jones –– 11726

Hon. Mr –– 11728

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the gallery today is a former employee, my former constituency secretary who was with me from 1984 to 1986 in Prince George, and her two sons. Would you please welcome Mrs. Laurie Atkins and her sons Mark and David.

MR. CASHORE: In the gallery today is the Rev. Gordon How, the executive secretary of the B.C. Conference of the United Church of Canada. Would the House please join me in making him welcome.

MR. HUBERTS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery my cousin is here from Ontario with his wife: Allan and Joanne Heidbuurt. They have friends with them: George and Freda Hellinga. They are part of the male chorus that is travelling through British Columbia, and I would ask the House to welcome them.

MRS. BOONE: In the gallery today are two dear friends of my legislative assistant, Harold and Barbara Walton of West Vancouver. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. PERRY: I would like to welcome to the Legislature today Mrs. Bobbie Bower of Langley, B.C. Mrs. Bower has rendered extraordinary service to the province by addressing herself to both me and the Minister of Health on the issue of hepatitis B immunization in B.C. and has accomplished, with the help of the minister, some good work. I am sure that the minister joins me in welcoming her today, and I'd like other members to recognize her achievements.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery is my son Ryan Peterson, accompanied by one of his good friends, Alex Benekritis. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the public accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1990, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, pursuant to orders of the House made April 5, 1990.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

PRESENTATION OF 1991-92 BUDGET

MR. HARCOURT: On Monday the Finance minister told the Legislature that there will be budget estimates coming down in this House, but outside the assembly the minister had a different story. He said: "We'll see some sort of interim financial bill or budget in the next few weeks." He said we'd have to wait and see. Which is it? Has the minister decided to table a complete budget, or is it just going to be an interim supply bill?

HON. MR. VEITCH: There will be either supply or a complete budget coming down in the next short while.

MR. HARCOURT: In two weeks your government runs out of authority to spend money. With an interim supply bill, though, you're simply seeking approval to spend more. A budget reveals the state of government finances, and it projects expenditures and revenues over the complete fiscal year. There's a big difference. An interim supply bill alone won't guarantee a look at the books. Will the minister tell us when this House will see a budget?

HON. MR. VEITCH: We'll probably come down with interim supply first, Mr. Speaker, and shortly following that, a budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: When?

HON. MR. VEITCH: As soon as it's ready, and in the fullness of time.

MR. HARCOURT: Things sure have changed. At one time Bill Bennett stood before this House and said: "Not a dime without debate." Now you want billions without a budget. Will the Minister of Finance fulfil his obligation to the people of British Columbia and tell us today in this House that he'll present a budget within the next two weeks?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm sure that any financial bills, whether interim supply or a budget, will be well debated in this House. I can assure you that we're not spending billions or contemplating spending billions like they are in your role model, Ontario. I understand that they're contemplating a possible $15 billion budget next year, and that's after only two years of socialist bliss. Think what would happen if that ever happened in the province of British Columbia. There will be full debate, and the proper legislation will be brought forward as soon as it's ready.

GOVERNMENT RENTAL OF OFFICE SPACE

MS. MARZARI: I have a question to the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs and of Government Management Services. Madam Minister, Women's Programs is presently vacating an office in the Bentall Centre. You’ve signed a five-year lease for that space at $170,000 a year. You've been there for nine months; you're now moving on. That building is vacant. You've signed the lease, and it's costing you thousands of dollars every week.

We've been talking in this House about limited resources for women and children. In fact, $170,000 a year is more than half of the annual budget for transition houses. It's not a small sum. Madam Minister, why are you throwing away $170,000 a year

[ Page 11702 ]

on empty office space when you could be helping women and children in this province?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I appreciate the question, because the member opposite has pointed out the frugality and the good common sense that is demonstrated in Women's Programs. That's the very reason we have moved out of that very expensive downtown space. The space will very shortly be occupied by someone else. We've made arrangements to get out of the lease.

What we've done is to regionalize Women's Programs. That office will now be in New Westminster, not in downtown Vancouver. There will also be five other offices throughout the province serving women all over British Columbia. One of the very first decisions we made was that Women's Programs had to be available to all women throughout this province. That's the reason we no longer have an office in downtown Vancouver.

MS. MARZARI: Madam Minister, nine months ago you signed a lease for $170,000. You renovated those offices to the tune of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money. Now you are splitting the program, with half of it going to New Westminster and the library coming back to Victoria. I'm not sure of the rationale of that effort.

The question is: will this space be rented immediately, and how much money will the taxpayers be spending while that space is vacant?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't mind repeating my answer. I take every opportunity I can to talk about the success of Women's Programs in the last 15 months.

That lease was signed by a former acting director of Women's Programs, and I don't have any hesitation in saying or admitting that it was the wrong thing to do. The policy has been changed in the ministry, and we decided — rightly so — that that money should be spent on women's programs and not on an expensive office in downtown Vancouver.

[2:15]

MR. CLARK: Maybe we can elicit some more mistakes from the minister responsible for B.C. Buildings Corporation. Can the minister confirm that vacant office space at the Plaza of Nations on the old Expo site has cost B.C. taxpayers some $450,000 in the last year? That's half a million dollars for empty office space.

HON. MRS. GRAN: No, I can't, but I would be happy to take the question as notice.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'm getting tired of seeing ignorance as a defence from this minister. It's 18,000 square feet at $25 per annum.

New question. Will the minister confirm that provincewide there is 500,000 square feet of empty government office space that you are paying rent for?

Will you inform the House how much that is costing British Columbians?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I believe I've already taken that question as notice.

I must say that I object to the word "ignorance." I don't consider myself to be ignorant.

MR. CLARK: The minister professes not to know that there are 18, 000 square feet of prime office-space in downtown Vancouver that's been empty for a year, and she's the minister responsible. Now she says she doesn't know there's 500,000 square feet provincewide of empty rented government office space in British Columbia. And you're the minister responsible.

New question. Will the minister not agree that some restraint when it comes to renting expensive, empty office space is more desirable than rolling back or cutting wages of women public servants in British Columbia.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I feel that it's far more honest and prudent for me to say that I will bring those answers back to the House if I don't have them at my fingertips. So I think in fairness — and you would agree, were you standing in my position — that it's impossible for any minister to have all of those figures at their fingertips. I am more than happy to bring those answers back to the House for your perusal.

WATER QUALITY

MR. CHALMERS: My question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday the chairman of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Institute of Public Health inspectors told the Royal Commission on Health Care that the residents of over 50 communities in our province are at risk of contacting a disease commonly known as beaver fever as a result of the contamination of watersheds by infected animals. In view of these alarming reports, what action has the minister decided to take to deal effectively with this problem?

HON. J. JANSEN: The question of giardiasis is a concern in a number of communities that rely on surface water for their water supply. We now have approximately 100 boil advisories in place in the province that relate to this water problem. We have hired 18 additional water inspectors to go through the province to assist communities, in identifying these problems and trying to resolve them.

My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs, through his municipal infrastructure grant program, has increased the grants from $40 million to $65 million to assist communities in addressing some of these problems.

The problem stems from animals that bring this disease into the water system through their by-products. It is obviously difficult to control the movement of animals, but we are addressing it in terms of municipal infrastructure.

[ Page 11703 ]

PUBLIC SECTOR BARGAINING REGISTRAR

MR. SIHOTA: My question is to the minister responsible for the program governing the registration of public sector bargaining positions. Could the minister please advise the House what the cost to date has been to the taxpayers with respect to this ill-conceived plan?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to take that question on notice.

MR. SIHOTA. Mr. Speaker, I see that he had some difficulty determining who is responsible for the program, Now that that's been resolved, I have a new question to the minister.

Given that the bill was ill-conceived, and that it has now been indicated that the program will be terminated, has the minister responsible (a) notified Mr. Yanow — who is paid $80,000 a year — that he's been fired, (b) notified him that he's been laid off, or (c) given him another job?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought not always source his information from any of the leading newspapers in this province. Mr. Yanow was indeed met with last Friday. Arrangements have been made with him, and he's fully aware of this legislation and its impending impact upon him. Mr. Yanow, like every other public servant in British Columbia, will be dealt with fairly.

EXPORT OF WATER

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, the question is to the Minister of Environment. As the minister knows, several companies have applied for water export licences from our coast. Current applications could open the floodgates to 700 yearly tanker movements in pristine Toba Inlet alone. Agrologists, native bands, regional districts and others have expressed concerns about proceeding without public involvement. The question is: has the minister decided to ensure that no licences will be granted until a thorough, public, arm’s-length environmental review is completed?

HON. MR. SERWA: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is that the matter is under review. It is a fairly complex issue. There is a great deal of potential there for the people of the province. But until the review is completed we're just proceeding on that basis and exploring all the elements in that review.

LOANS TO SOCIAL CREDIT RIDINGS

MR. LOENEN: My question is to the Minister of Regional and Economic Development. As you know there have been some very serious allegations that this ministry has made loans or loan guarantees primarily to those ridings held by government members. Can the minister assure this House that every British Columbian will be treated with fairness and that in British Columbia today there is equality of opportunity for all and special privileges for none?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before recognizing the minister I would caution him to keep his answer within a relatively tight confine, because the question is so open-ended as to be an abuse of question period.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the answer, generally speaking, is yes, I can give that assurance. More specifically, perhaps I should, for the information of the House — because I suspect what drives the question is information reported as recently as this morning in the media — the answer is that in terms of the loans and guarantees and contributions provided by the ministry to businesses and communities during the length of the programs, the dollar amount to those constituencies represented by members of the New Democratic Party is $283 million, and to constituencies represented by the Social Credit Party it's $300 million. With respect to loans to businesses only — loans and guarantees — the numbers are $281 million to New Democratic and $296 million to Social Credit ridings.

With respect to the issue of the number of loans that I have dealt with, the largest loan in terms of risk, in terms of dollar amount and in terms of impact — and, indeed, the first one I dealt with in terms of communities — was a loan which will be used substantially, if not entirely, in the constituency of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

The article you may be contemplating today in the local newspaper is false. The reporter who made that report from the legislative bureau had available to him at the time he made the report information that would have contradicted his own article, and he could have found that information by reading the front page of his own newspaper.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will allow one more question. The member for North Island.

EXPORT OF WATER

MR. GABELMANN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that opportunity. I have a question for the Minister of International Business and Immigration. The Canadian Bar Association has suggested that water is covered by the free trade agreement with the United States. Before any applications for bulk-water export are permitted in British Columbia, has there been a full impact study in respect of the implications under the free trade agreement?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The whole matter, as my colleague said, is under review. There had been some water licences issued, but that doesn't mean any water can be shipped. There's a long way between shipping water and issuing licences. Several conditions would have to be met. As my hon. colleague the

[ Page 11704 ]

Minister of Environment stated: "The matter is under review." In fact, there are nine ministries involved in the issue. No water will be shipped unless there is a great benefit imbuing to the people of British Columbia and indeed, as my colleague said, all environmental concerns have been met.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed to the next order of business, could I have your attention, please. Perhaps members would like to review Standing Orders about which questions should be questions on the order paper and which questions should be oral. There have been some rather elaborate preambles to questions and some rather lengthy questions. The Chair is limited by the time and would like to see everyone who wishes to ask a question in a relatively short time accommodated during question period. Thank you for your cooperation on that matter.

Presenting Reports

MR. LOENEN: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

MR. LOENEN: With leave, I move that the rules be suspended to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

MR. LOENEN: Before the question is called, I would like to make a few comments on this. First of all, this report was adopted unanimously by the committee. Moreover, the committee believes that the recommendation will provide better and more complete information to consumers when they buy life insurance, mutual funds or any kinds of securities, or when they rely on professional financial advice.

The committee also believes that these recommendations, through increased information and disclosure, will render fraudulent or unethical practices by financial institutions more difficult.

The committee wishes to thank and express appreciation to the numerous members of the financial planning industry and individual consumers who so readily offered their advice and suggestions. These recommendations result from an extensive and consultative process, including public hearings. We recommend this report for implementation by the government.

[2:30]

Finally, I wish to thank the many members of this House who contributed to this report. In particular, the present Minister of Labour and the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey deserve mention. Lastly, this report could not have succeeded without the diligent service of the Clerk of Committees, Craig James.

I move that the report now be adopted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 83, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Regional and Economic Development began the closing debate and will continue today.

JOB PROTECTION ACT
(continued)

HON. MR. SMITH: Yesterday when we rose for the afternoon I was discussing with the House a number of the issues that have been raised, particularly by members opposite, with respect to this legislation and to its principles, and their concerns about those principles and about the impact of the specific matters they raised on those issues. I want, if I may, to continue with that.

Mr. Speaker, I think the point at which we drew this matter to a close yesterday really does define ever so terribly well the difference between our position on job protection and the position put forward by the NDP. I just want to remind you of what was said, both yesterday and on January 28, by the Leader of the Opposition. Yesterday it was said that this whole issue was something of whimsy. Yesterday it was said as well that many of the issues we have dealt with — Evans Products, which I'm going to talk about specifically; the Western Star Trucks project, which was raised yesterday and which I will talk about specifically; and the West Coast Plywood issue, which was raised yesterday and which I will talk about specifically — were not appropriate or worthy of support, and that somehow that was an inappropriate use of government moneys or government credit.

The third thing referred to yesterday was a matter that had been reported — I am told, at least — by no less an authority on New Democratic Party policy than the Vancouver Sun on January 29, when they said that the opposition leader had wanted to create a critical industry commission to help negotiate plant closures. Now I think that is the point of demarcation that we should begin this afternoon's proceedings with.

Mr. Speaker, we have introduced this legislation because we do not want plant closures. We have brought in legislation to empower a job protection commissioner precisely so that we can keep jobs going, and precisely so that we can find the way and the will among people in the community, on the plant floor and within the employees' groups to ensure that we don't have plant closures where that is possible, but instead will have plant continuity and indeed plant expansion. That is a very clear distinction between our program and that which was articulated by the Leader of the Opposition.

[ Page 11705 ]

The other issue that shows clearly — more than anything that we can articulate.... The Leader of the Opposition said that it is the goal of the New Democratic Party, with respect to job protection and creation, to create 9,000 jobs per year. Mr. Speaker, that is their goal. They aspire to lead British Columbia with the creation of 9,000 jobs a year. In fact, Mr. Speaker, today in British Columbia we are creating 36,000 jobs per year. What it is that they aspire to do, clearly — by their own statements, and I'm taking their statements; I'm not inventing this — is to reduce the number of jobs that are created in British Columbia by 27,000.

Therefore I can understand why this whole issue was referred to as whimsy by one of their members, because clearly that is whimsy. It's not right. The issues that we ought to be dealing with are ones that are real. They're about real jobs for real people in real communities around this province. I suggest to you they deserve the serious attention of this Legislature through the introduction and support of the bill that we have brought in.

As well, yesterday we had a number of the members issue statements and concerns about this particular notion of job creation and job protection in our communities. I was interested to note that the second member for Boundary-Similkameen did not indicate support for the Polestar project at Apex Mountain — an important mining project in that area, which will create jobs and which is supported very clearly and specifically by the first member for Boundary-Similkameen. Apparently it is not by the second member, because I asked him to articulate that support.

That also demonstrates clearly once again the attitude between the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit Party with respect to mining. It is a very important issue in British Columbia, because the health of our economy and our capacity to protect jobs is very much dependent upon the kind of attitude we bring with us in support of mining projects up and down this province and in support of the mining industry.

The second member for Boundary-Similkameen also said, when he was calling Mr. Kerley a czar — which I think is a terribly inappropriate thing to attach to a gentleman of his ability and of his longstanding prominence in the British Columbia business community.... But when he was saying that, he also indicated that he had some kind of firsthand knowledge about the gas prices in the United States. Hopefully he will refrain in future as an NDPer from crossing over to Oroville and Omak to fill up his gas tank, and he will instead patronize the businesses in Oliver, Osoyoos and Penticton as he should be doing.

The second member for Cariboo says that the bill we have before the House should allow for land-use planning.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Minister, I must advise you that under the standing orders, the time available for you to close debate has expired. The time under standing orders for the reply has expired. The member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale is standing on a point of order.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to give the speaker more time. I was going to ask leave of the House to have the minister give us the balance of his presentation.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a matter that the Chair has a choice on.

MR. REID: Maybe the House could vote on it.

MR. SPEAKER: If it will satisfy the member, I'll put the question. Shall leave be granted? I hear several noes. Thank you very much. I must ask now....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Perhaps I was remiss in not advising Mr. Speaker that the minister is our designated speaker on this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: That's appropriate in his opening remarks, but not on the closing remarks. The standing orders have a fixed time for closing remarks. I must ask the minister to now put the question. Therefore I'd like you to move second reading.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 83, Job Protection Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

COMPENSATION FAIRNESS ACT

HON. MR. VEITCH: Before commencing second reading I would like to table a draft of the compensation fairness guidelines, and I believe copies have been made available to all members. If they have not, the Sergeant-at-Arms will be passing them around.

Bill 82, the Compensation Fairness Act, introducer, the concept of compensation fairness based on the taxpayers', and therefore the employers', ability to pay.

On January 29, 1991, the Premier of the province announced a 12-point taxpayer protection program. One of the key elements of that program is control of public expenditure. One of the key components of public expenditure is wages paid to public sector employees.

British Columbia citizens pay, through their taxes, the wages of over 200,000 public servants in British Columbia. The compensation wages, plus benefits, cost the taxpayer approximately $8.3 billion per annum. If these costs were allowed to increase without restraint in an environment of slowing govern-

[ Page 11706 ]

ment revenue, only three options would possibly exist.

The first option would see thousands of public servants, all taxpayers themselves, forced out of work as public sector wages rose beyond the taxpayers', and therefore the public sector employers' ability to pay. Such a situation would hurt public servants through unemployment, would hurt the people of British Columbia through reduced services, and would hurt government through lost income tax that these workers would have paid had they still been employed. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this is no solution.

The second solution would see the same number of public servants employed, but would require borrowing to meet payroll demands. We have seen what a mess that is turning out to be in Ontario. This type of borrowing is nothing but a tax on future generations, a repeat of the irresponsible policies that we had under the New Democratic regime from 1972 to 1975, and we will not allow that to happen in British Columbia. This option was not prudent then, Mr. Speaker, nor is it prudent now. A Social Credit government simply will not do such a thing to the people of British Columbia.

The third option is one that provides for maintained levels of employment in the public sector without either borrowing or raising taxes. This option retains the integrity of government, including all social services, and does so within the taxpayers' ability to pay.

Compensation fairness with respect to public sector wage settlements is reasonable, workable and affordable. Compensation fairness is the prudent option. It is the vision that the Social Credit government has chosen for British Columbia.

There are over 700 different public sector employers, each unique in its own way in British Columbia. Each employer has different tax bases and differing abilities to generate tax revenues. Some have the power to tax — for example, municipalities and school districts. Some charge regulated utility rates; others charge fees for services. Some employees are represented by trade unions, while about 20 percent are not.

Because the public sector is not homogeneous, this program does not prescribe a homogeneous solution. No one set of facts, and therefore no one formula, fits the different groups and wage groups who benefit from the public purse — a public purse that does not raise revenue in other ways but through taxing productive individuals and firms within the economy. The taxpayers' ability to pay those taxes depends on an ability to generate wealth in the competitive world marketplace.

[2:45]

British Columbia is a small, open, all too often commodity-based and export-dominated economy. Our products are sold in the world marketplace. We are price-takers in British Columbia, not price-setters. Our ability to pay is based on our ability to compete around the world. There is no independent money pot. There is no government tap that can be turned on in time of need, and no tree on which endless supplies of finance grow, as the opposition would have us believe.

As our economic wealth increases, we can afford more. The growth in the economy is what generates wealth and therefore taxes. At no time can we pay more than the taxpayer can afford. At no time can we pay more in compensation increases than the economy can generate through growth in taxes.

Let it be clear that we cannot continue to increase taxes and expect our industry to remain internationally competitive — a lesson taught to us by the first hon. member for Vancouver East in 1974, and a hard lesson for thousands of workers once employed in British Columbia's mining industry. We do not believe that it is reasonable that a key ingredient of total public sector expenditure, such as compensation paid to public sector employees, should be unresponsive to conditions elsewhere in the marketplace.

It is not fair to ask taxpayers present or future — the vast majority of whom are and will be employed in the private sector — to fund wage increases for public sector employees at a rate in excess of that determined by the market for their own remuneration. In short, the private sector must lead the public sector, not the other way around.

We must create wealth before we can even contemplate redistributing that wealth. When the market turns down or in times of recession, those taxpayers employed in the private sector may be laid off or may have their hours of work reduced. In any case, whether or not their wages increase will certainly depend on the profitability of the enterprise in which they are employed. Average private sector settlements are presently in the 4 percent to 5 percent range. Recent public sector wage settlements have been averaging 7 percent to 8 percent.

That's not the full story. These unrealistic, high total compensation increases provide pay and benefits for the employee over a full 12-month period — full pay for a full year's work. In the private sector, temporary layoffs are, unfortunately, a way of life.

So, Mr. Speaker, the intent of the legislation is to ensure that wage increases bargained in good faith between public sector employers and public sector employees are not beyond the ability of the taxpayer, and therefore the employer, to pay. Thus we can ensure fairness not only to the parties who bargained agreements, but also to those who must pay the bill ultimately, and they are the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia.

Unlike the private sector, there is no market-driven consequence for the public sector. This program establishes the only relationship possible by deriving that marketplace through the taxpayers' ability to pay. Although this legislation is in a form similar to that introduced in 1982, the emphasis on a concept of ability to pay will result in more opportunity to ensure fairness and not simply restraint. The compensation fairness program will provide sufficient flexibility within the complete focus of fairness.

This distinguishing feature is reflected in several flexibilities within the guidelines. The guidelines will permit consideration of pay equity plans intended to

[ Page 11707 ]

address gender-based wage rate disparities and compensation increases intended to meet human rights legislation requirements. Pay increases may also be accommodated where necessary to address short-term and long-term skill shortages. Further, other factors which fall within the competitive guidelines — less structured work practices which encourage productivity gains and cash bonuses in lieu of base adjustments — will also be considered.

The compensation fairness program will apply to the complete public sector, including Crown corporations, municipal employees, health care, education and private societies performing public functions. It will apply to all public sector employee groups equally.

Unlike the previous compensation stabilization plan, it will not be time limited. This program will, therefore, allow public employees to share with other employee groups in the province when times are good, when the economy is on the ascendancy, and at the same time will result in wage adjustments to public sector employees sensitive to reduce revenues resulting from economic downturn, as are the wages of all other employees in the province. The taxpayer will not be asked to carry the cost of insulating the public sector from recession.

The guidelines within which total compensation increases must fall are not rigid. They will vary as provincial revenues rise or fall. This is as it should be in order that public sector wages are adjusted only in accordance with the overall health of the provincial economy. There is no intention to pretend that this legislation could attempt to identify all the variables in each employer's workplace. It is clearly the intention that employers and employees and the representatives sit down and identify where productivity savings can be achieved. Sharing those savings is an integral part of this bill.

Free collective bargaining will not be restricted under this program; only compensation will be addressed. Although total compensation increases must fall within the guidelines, all aspects of the collective agreement are fully negotiable. Only in the event that a public sector employer and a public sector employee group choose to negotiate an agreement under which the total compensation increase exceeds the guidelines will a commissioner intervene by returning the plan for further discussion. No compensation plan can be implemented without the commissioner's approval.

The commissioner will have full independence in the administration of the program. It is not intended to be, nor will it be, a political process. It is intended to reflect a commitment to sound fiscal management — the foundation of Social Credit governments past, present and future.

The program is centred on the definition of the public sector employers' ability to pay. Ability to pay is defined as the current ability of a public sector employer to increase compensation under compensation plans, taking into account relevant factors, including but not limited to any fiscal or financial policies to which the public sector employer is subject and the impact of increased costs on the levels of public service.

One further feature of the compensation fairness program is the compensation rationalization for senior managers, which will allow us to achieve uniformity and fairness of compensation for senior managers.

This act provides for an effective date of January 30, 1991, and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect. Under this legislation all agreements reached prior to that date will not be subject to the guidelines. However, all agreements reached after that date, including those in the bargaining stage prior to January 30, are fully affected.

Executive compensation, in our view, should not be exempt from the principles of fairness contained within this bill. The chief executive officer and senior officials in all public sector enterprises recognize that inconsistency and inequity ought to be eliminated. This bill will permit me as the minister responsible to review compensation at the senior level to ensure that marketplace fairness— fair comparability between employers and the public sector, and fair compensation to our executives throughout this public sector — is in place.

Where time and circumstance have resulted in inconsistent compensation arrangements, whether too high or too low, I will bring policies forward to make the necessary corrections over time. The public can expect that we attract and retain the very best executives to manage our public service organizations, but that our responsibility as government is to manage in a responsible manner.

The value of pay increments and reclassification plans will be taken into consideration in determining the cost to the public sector employer of a total compensation plan. Additionally, costs associated with the provision of public services not directly tied to employee compensation but captured within the notion of ability to pay will also be subject to review. The office of the commissioner established under the program will be responsible for monitoring all compensation plans in the public sector.

Interpretation of the application of the guidelines, policies or regulations would be provided to parties upon request. Where the settlement exceeds the guidelines, the parties will be advised.

The commissioner will ensure that compensation agreements comply with the requirements of the compensation fairness program, and his rulings will have a binding effect. The commissioner will not interfere in the normal course of collective bargaining, although either party may seek interpretations of the guidelines from the commissioner at any stage during the negotiations.

It is critical that essential social programs not be jeopardized by excessive public sector expenditures, particularly in the area of compensation. The integrity and quality of service by public sector workers is unchallenged, but compensation increases must be determined first by the ability to pay.

[3:00]

[ Page 11708 ]

In the spring of 1990, government sought to influence the size of public sector wage settlements by means other than establishing firm guidelines. The Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act was one aspect of the government's efforts. It was hoped that the market could, with slight assistance, correct itself, and we believed that the disclosure requirement of the act could provide that assistance. Despite our efforts, the market did not correct itself.

Although we contacted public sector employers and emphasized the need to give paramount consideration to the ability of the taxpayer to pay any negotiated wage increase, percentage wage settlements have continued to exceed the private sector. This cannot be allowed to continue. Thus, we have concluded that we must seek to achieve our goals through other means.

This bill is a statement of our commitment to economic reality. In an ideal world, it would be nice to presume that all outcomes you seek can be achieved without a guiding hand. Regrettably, the world is not ideal, and this guiding hand is intended to ensure fairness to the taxpayers, the people of British Columbia, as well as to our valued public sector workers.

Other Canadian jurisdictions have addressed problems in other ways. The province of Ontario, I must add — the only socialist province in Canada — has not opted for any solution whatsoever to this problem. That is one of the reasons that budget deficits for the next fiscal year are projected upwards to $15 billion. Other Canadian jurisdictions have addressed the same problems in ways involving direct intervention in the process of collective bargaining and in rigid boundaries within which wage increases must fall.

This legislation is not of that sort. It will not restrict the ability of the public sector employers and employee groups to freely bargain a collective agreement which meets their respective objectives. It will simply ensure that in that process they will have regard to the interests of those who must ultimately pay the bills — the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Some may argue that the answer to this issue is to simply bargain tougher. Well, we will bargain. However, there are over 700 public sector employers representing over 200,000 public sector employees in British Columbia. Unfortunately, some appear not to bring sufficient discipline to the bargaining table. It is only indirectly their own money. It's often too easy to argue government underfunding. That's the easy way out.

Government does not have money of its own; in fact, governments at all levels tax the same taxpayer, whether they be school boards or whether they be municipal, provincial or federal. Eighty percent of our transfers to the public sector employers go directly to pay envelopes of our employees. A competitive marketplace discipline is needed, and this bill introduces that reality. That reality is the growth in our economy and therefore the taxpayers' ability to pay.

It is my pleasure to move second reading of Bill 82.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. CLARK: Let's make no mistake about this. This bill has more to do with politics and the political agenda of this government than it does with concern for taxpayers' dollars. It is deliberately provocative and it provokes confrontation. The really offensive part of this bill is that it plays politics with people's lives to suit the government's election strategy. It shows how desperate this government has become. It gives the government the power to retroactively break legal contracts and make workers pay back money legally paid to them. I might say that that not only violates the comments of the Premier, but of the former Minister of Finance and the newly appointed commissioner, as we have letters stating that it would be retroactive only to the date of the Premier's televised speech. This bill allows for unlimited retroactivity beyond and before the Premier's speech.

It's an example of the erratic and unpredictable nature of this government. No one can predict the rules in British Columbia. The Premier changes his mind three times on the way in from the parking lot every day.

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we will be voting against this legislation. The government claims that they're in favour of restraint, but it's clear from this bill that it's restraint only for some people. It is selective restraint. Once again we see the double standard we've come to expect from this administration. On the one hand are 100 percent taxpayer-funded pensions for doctors; on the other hand, nurses are being laid off and salaries are being capped below the level of inflation, we're led to believe. We see 20 percent salary increases for ministers' political aides, including the current Minister of Finance's. On the other hand, the bill says that teachers cannot negotiate lower class sizes.

We see the Minister of Regional and Economic Development about to give away $40 million to one company, but the same government professes that it has no money to hire more nurses, police officers, firefighters, teachers or public servants. It's a bit like going on a diet and saying you're going to give up ice cream but continuing to eat chocolate bars. It says there's restraint only for some people but not for everyone else. They continue to spend money on areas that they claim are political priorities, but they have no money for public servants.

It's obvious that during an economic slowdown governments must carefully plan spending. But any government initiatives to control spending must be applied fairly, and this bill is not fair. It singles out employees of government to bear the burden of the government's restraint program.

There are four or five aspects to this legislation that I and my colleagues find particularly offensive. First, the bill contains unlimited retroactivity. The government is seeking unprecedented power to roll back wage increases that were granted perhaps one,

[ Page 11709 ]

two or three years ago. Two parties negotiate in good faith; they come to an agreement; they sign a legal contract. Suddenly, one or two years later, the government can use this law to retroactively rip up a legal contract.

The government asks for the power in this bill to make employees pay back money that was legally paid to them in a legal contract signed some time ago. That power is contained in this bill. In other words, Big Brother — the government — is giving itself the power to destroy a legal contract and then confiscate money from public employees. It will reach into the bank accounts of citizens and take back money that was legally paid to them. They wish to use the power of government to confiscate people's paycheques.

Who decides whether a contract will be rolled back retroactively? The government decides. Who decides how far back they will go to rip up a contract? The government does. Will all public sector workers be treated the same? Not necessarily; there's no guarantee. The government says it wants flexibility. What that means is that some groups of public servants will be, or could be, treated differently than other groups. They could pick on the nurses, for example, with this bill, who have been given larger increases than other employees, and roll them back — and them only. This bill allows for that kind of selective restraint.

The bill gives enormous and arbitrary power to the commissioner, who is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by this government. Does anybody seriously trust this government to act fairly with this kind of open-ended and arbitrary power? It has consistently exhibited a double standard when it comes to public spending, and I think most people would see this as an invitation to abuse.

The bill is deliberately provocative. It is designed, I believe, to provoke labour unrest in a desperate attempt to find an election issue. They need an issue that will divert the public's attention away from the scandals, away from the ethical lapses of this administration. They're desperately looking for an issue and hoping that this bill will incite labour unrest. That's the real agenda here — nothing to do with restraint or concern about taxpayers. It's a deliberate attempt to provoke the labour movement to react. It's simple and clear.

Mr. Speaker, is this bill necessary? Do we need legislation to keep wage settlements at a level where the public has the ability to pay?

My first question is: what have they been doing over the last four years? They're saying: "Gee, we can't afford that. We'd better sign it." Surely a government that professes to be concerned about the taxpayer hasn't been entering into contracts beyond the ability of government to pay. Surely school boards who've been given a budget and who negotiate a collective agreement can't spend more money than they've been given. Surely, under the leadership of a competent government concerned about taxpayers, they wouldn't enter into agreements that were beyond the ability of the government to pay.

Of course, it was the Premier himself who negotiated the nurses' agreement, which is beyond the guidelines, it appears. It was the Premier himself who negotiated a sweetheart deal for doctors. It's no wonder that they need legislation with the track record of this Premier and of poor negotiations, not to mention the fiasco of the Expo land sale that the Premier negotiated — or his government negotiated — not to mention the poor negotiating track record of this administration in other land deals. So maybe that's why they claim they need legislation, because they simply haven't done a good job of negotiating.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, the government signs a collective agreement. It takes two parties to negotiate a contract. I always find it ironic that after the government signs a contract with their employees, they would have the gall to come into the House and say "We're giving them too much," after they signed their name to the contract. We need legislation now to force a rollback in contracts that they signed. It's their job to negotiate on behalf of taxpayers. This bill pretends that they have failed.

[3:15]

What are the facts, Mr. Speaker? In January, 1991, the wage gap between public and private sector was 0.7 percent. In other words, the public sector, on average, received 0.7 percent more than the private sector. The gap has been narrowing, as always is the case. Public sector wages lead the private sector sometimes; they fall behind in other times. On average now in British Columbia the gap is very narrow.

I want to draw the attention of the House to the latest B.C. Business Council document, which shows that wage gap. In February, 1991, the public sector received 6.11 percent wage increases; the private sector received 6.23 percent wage increases. So last month, private sector settlements were higher than public sector. The month before that, in January, the public sector were 0.7 percent higher than the private sector. Does that look like public sector wages are outstripping the private sector? Of course not. The gap has narrowed; in fact, last month, settlements in the private sector were higher than in the public sector.

Do we need the heavy hand of government in this kind of legislation not only when the gap has narrowed, but when the private sector in the last month received a higher settlement than the public sector?

The bill is unnecessarily provocative and could result in labour unrest. Does this inspire investor confidence in British Columbia? First of all, the prospect of labour unrest hardly inspires investor confidence. Secondly, ripping up contracts retroactively, going in and confiscating money from employees, which is contemplated in this bill — does that inspire investor confidence? Is that the sign of a stable government? No, it's the sign of a desperate government that is asking us to give them arbitrary power to retroactively break legal contracts and to retroactively seize money out of people's bank accounts.

There are several other things in this bill designed to provoke a reaction. Section 10(b) of the bill states

[ Page 11710 ]

that the guidelines apply to any "work practices, work rules, or working conditions." In other words, even things like health and safety improvements are now covered if they cost money, so what happens if the Workers' Compensation Board orders a Crown corporation to remove asbestos? Does that now come out of the wage packet of the public employee working for that Crown corporation? Clearly, that's what's contemplated.

Teachers, who have been arguing and struggling to lower class size to improve our education system, now have to pay for that lower class size out of their pay. That's what the bill says. It says that working conditions, occupational health and safety standards, anything that costs money, must come out of the envelope. It means that the negotiated safety of our workers must come out of their pay raise.

It's extraordinary that the government would go to those lengths. The provision allows government to interfere with any number of workplace improvements, including non-discrimination clauses, protection of affirmative action programs, educational leave, personal leave and bereavement leave. All of those things are now part of the compensation package contemplated by this bill. All are now subject to restraint under this legislation.

The bill also says that there can be no appeal under section 33(2). This is quite extraordinary. Section 33 gives the commissioner the power to give decisions the force of a B.C. Supreme Court order, but then it says no appeal may be taken from that order. It's an outrageous removal of a basic common-law principle that says there must an avenue for appeal — an avenue to appeal court decisions, for example. It seems rather strange that they would want to remove the right of appeal, a decent and common-law practice in our system of government.

Section 19(2)(j). What does it say? It says reclassifications are banned. The minister said that pay equity is exempted from this bill. That's not the case. The bill makes no reference to pay equity. In fact, section 19(2)(j) says reclassifications are part of the compensation package. Frankly, very often in a pay equity negotiation, it may well be that certain classifications are changed to accord women who have been systematically discriminated against in our system a different classification where more money can be earned. That is explicitly prohibited under this legislation. Pay equity, despite what the minister said, is not exempted from this legislation. So equal pay for work of equal value, which we've heard this minister and this government talk about, is specifically tied into this legislation. That means this legislation prohibits certain actions which might normally be seen as part of a pay equity package.

Section 29. What does section 29 say? This is a very interesting section. It says that government managers are covered, but it doesn't say that really, when you look at it. It really says that the government can exempt people, because senior managers.... It says the government may — not shall — require a list of senior government managers, and it may change that list from time to time.

What they've done is conveniently allow the legislation the capacity to exempt certain people; for example, the minister's own political assistant who received a 20 percent pay increase. He's exempt from this legislation. In fact, other senior government staff, like deputy ministers who received over 50 percent in pay increases over the last four years.... The issue is not whether their current pay to fair or not. The issue is the double standard — 50 percent for some employees who are political appointments or deputy ministers of the government, but we can't do that for other people. It's not fair.

What about the loss of key professionals to other provinces and the U.S.? We have a nursing shortage. Many people argue, and I believe, that the nursing shortage was exacerbated by the previous restraint program. Does this help remedy our nursing shortage, when the heavy hand of government is going to restrain the wages of those largely women employees? Does it help us recruit nurses when we have a shortage?

All the projections are that there will be a shortage of teachers a few years down the road. Does this help us attract good-quality teachers to teach our young people? Of course not. It exacerbates the situation.

What about health technicians, such as perfusionists and others, of which there is a desperate shortage? What happened to perfusionists? Does this help us? Of course not. It exacerbates those problems.

What should be done? In an economic slowdown, it's my view the government should be guided by three principles: (1) we should strive for better value for taxpayer dollars; (2) we should make our government spending priorities right; and (3) no one should be unfairly burdened or singled out.

The government has failed on all three counts. Striving for better value. We have seen 500,000 square feet of empty office space in British Columbia, on which the government is paying rent. We have 18,000 square feet of prime office space at the Expo site empty. The government paid close to half a million dollars in rent last year for empty office space. Is that getting our spending priorities right?

It's a travesty that this government has the gall to come here and say that nurses, teachers and other public servants have to be restrained while they are wasting millions of dollars on bad business deals and on empty office space. It's a double standard which we have come to expect time and time again from this administration.

What about administrative costs? Under this administration, administrative costs have grown and grown. We have more cabinet ministers and more cabinet ministers' offices than ever before in British Columbia. Is there any restraint there? No.

What about government aircraft? Is there any restraint there? Government ministers flying by themselves back and forth from Kamloops every day, the two ministers from Kamloops flying back and forth on different jets within minutes of each other — is that restraint? Of course not. It's a double standard we've come to expect.

[ Page 11711 ]

What about making sure their spending priorities are right? As I suggested, it's another principle which should guide government as we move into an economic slowdown. The $25 million for doctors' pensions. Massive government advertising campaigns. We've never seen so much government advertising. Has that been cut? No. At the same time they're spending more than ever in history on advertising they have the gall to come in here and say: "We have no money to pay for teachers, health care workers or other people who work in the public sector." The spending priorities of this administration frankly are out of concert with what people would like to see in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the question is: if we move into a recession or a slowdown, who should pay for it? Should it be working people who have paid taxes — 784 tax increases and income tax increases — and have paid and paid? Or should it be large corporations that didn’t pay any tax in the last few years? Should it be wealthy individuals who have had a tax break under this administration? Or should it be working people who have paid and paid?

It's a question of fairness. We need tax fairness. We need a system where everybody pays their fair share. This government singles out working people, senior citizens, people who can't afford it. We see massive increases in medicare premiums and on and on. Yet we see tax breaks for large companies and wealthy individuals.

As we move into an economic slowdown, if we need to look for ways of conserving revenue, we should look at our spending priorities. We should make sure we're getting fair value for our money. We should make sure that we have a fair tax system, so that the burden does not fall on one group of employees but falls equally on all citizens of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, it's a heavy-handed bill, deliberately designed to provoke confrontation and conflict. The Minister of Labour knows that. I notice he's not in the House — the Minister of Labour who was quoted as saying that this bill would provoke confrontation. As someone responsible for labour relations in British Columbia, he knows that this doesn't help bring about labour peace, that this is not conducive to promoting good relations between public sector employees and employers. It does the opposite. He knows. He was public and he said so. The government's own Minister of Labour opposes this legislation.

Before closing I want to make a few remarks just briefly about the fact that this bill eradicates the Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act. How many thousands of dollars were wasted setting up the public sector bargaining disclosure registry? We've all seen those full-page ads about labour disputes in the paper, with the tiny print that you can hardly read. Each one of those ads cost thousands of dollars. And now they've admitted that it hasn't done anything.

Of course, when they introduced Bill 79 last session, they said it was a sunshine bill. It was designed to provide information to the public. Now the Minister of Finance doesn't say that. He says the bill was designed to lower wages of public servants, and he says it hasn't worked. So the real purpose behind the bill was to provoke a confrontation. The real purpose behind the bill last year was to try and get public sector unions to react. It was an election bill.

What happened? It didn't work, so they have to bring in something even more heavy-handed. In the process they have wasted thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money setting up a system, with employees.... They rented office space. They paid Mr. Yanow $80,000 a year. He had five staff, including a lawyer. He set about getting collective agreements for every public sector collective agreement negotiated in the province. He had a big filing system. I was there. I visited him fairly recently. Now it's gone; it's eliminated by this legislation.

[3:30]

We argued against the bill last July, Mr. Speaker. We said it wouldn't work, and we're glad that the minister has finally agreed. It's too bad, however, that in the process we wasted thousands of taxpayers' dollars for a government that pretends to be concerned about taxpayers.

We will be voting against this bill, because it proves again that the government has a double standard. This is an extremist bill which not only eliminates any semblance of free collective bargaining for the public sector in B.C. but will promote confusion, instability and chaos. It is so alarmingly intrusive and sweeping that it may well be subject to challenge for various sections that appear to contravene basic common law.

Mr. Speaker, it's a desperate government that chooses yet again to pick on one group of employees at the same time they've given pay raises to their friends, to their political assistants, and at the same time there are other options that government should choose to be fair, to bring about the kind of efficiency in government that we all want, especially as we move into an economic slowdown. It's unacceptable that the government would stoop to a desperate attempt to provoke labour unrest for an election issue to take the public's mind off their own internal problems.

Mr. Speaker, we're voting against this legislation.

HON. S. HAGEN: It to my pleasure this afternoon to speak in favour of Bill 82, the Compensation Fairness Act.

I would like to remind the other side of the House particularly that this was the government that introduced free collective bargaining for teachers. Prior to January 1, 1988, teachers were able to negotiate only salaries and bonuses, but not other terms of their employment relationship. Teachers were also precluded from forming or joining unions. As of January 1, 1988, teachers have been able to negotiate collective agreements covering the terms of their employment. They also have been entitled to form and belong to trade unions.

[ Page 11712 ]

Free and collective bargaining is not being threatened by the introduction of this act. This act deals with fairness: fairness to employees and fairness to the taxpayer. Teachers will continue to negotiate collective agreements with school boards. No public sector employer will, however, be permitted to enter into an agreement that it cannot pay or that is in excess of the guidelines.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to point to the present salaries which teachers have negotiated and been very successful in negotiating over the past few years. These are prior to the new salaries that are just being negotiated. A beginning teacher in the province of British Columbia, with benefits, averages $35,800 a year. An experienced teacher with 11 years' experience, with benefits, earns almost $61,000 a year. The average teacher's salary, with benefits, is $51,466 a year. This does not include administrative salaries or other allowances that they get.

Wages in the public sector come from only one source: the pockets of the taxpayers in the province of British Columbia. In times of economic downturn, fiscal responsibility must be shown by all British Columbians, and this government through this bill is taking a firm stand on fiscal responsibility for fair wage settlements.

This is not an act designed with a special group in mind. All public sector employees and employers will play their part. The principles cross all public sector boundaries, and fairness is determined by the ability to pay.

It is not acceptable that services in our education system are cut back in order to be able to afford a salary settlement that substantially exceeds the private sector CPI. I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that in the province of British Columbia, private sector salary settlements over the past three years have averaged between 4 and 5 percent. Recently it has been reported in the media that some school boards have admitted to negotiating agreements that they cannot afford. Who suffers from this type of fiscal irresponsibility? It is indeed the students and the taxpayers.

Let's have a look at what makes up the estimated cost of a class of students in British Columbia. It's interesting to note that the estimated cost of a class is $125,200 a year, and of that, $110,000 is for salaries of various players in the education system. I'd like to just break that down, because even the members opposite may learn something from this. It may be interesting to them. The cost of a classroom teacher out of that $125,000 — $51,500 a year. Other instructional staff, libraries and counsellors — $30,700 a year; instructional supplies and learning materials — $6,200 a year, building operations and maintenance — $17,000 a year; student transportation per classroom — $3,000 a year; school administration per classroom in British Columbia — $10,000 a year; district administration — $6,500 a year.

Mr. Speaker, it's important to recognize that this will bring fairness into the system. The taxpayers cannot continue to afford time-after-time salary increases that are being negotiated. I was interested in listening to the second member for Vancouver East, and I've heard other members from that side of the House talk about higher taxes and the need for higher taxes to support these programs. He has even said that the job of a politician is to play around with taxes. We say, on this side of the House, that taxpayers are paying enough. We hear taxpayers saying that they are paying enough, and we agree with them.

The NDP socialists would want to drive this province into economic chaos. They always hold up the example of Sweden. Well, let's just talk about Sweden a bit. This is the NDP's example of a socialist success story: 23 percent GST and a 67 percent personal income tax rate. Is that fair to the taxpayers? 1 guess not. They have the highest employee absenteeism in the world of any industrialized country. I don't believe that's what the people of this province want. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to stand up in support of this bill.

MS. CULL: I believe that the principle of this bill is best understood by looking at its real motive. The minister claims that the bill is about affordable government and the taxpayer's ability to pay. But it's clear when you look at the bill that the real motive is to find a cheap election issue and to create confrontation with our public sector workers.

It's an old favourite of the Socreds: bashing the women and the men who work in the public service of this province — in our schools, in government, in hospitals and in many areas of the economy where the public service is the way we deliver services. It saddens me to see this being done again. The minister responsible for labour has said it himself: the bill will restrict free collective bargaining and will hinder attempts to foster better relations between employers and employees. And he's right. This attack on the women and the men who work in the public service will threaten them. It will demoralize them. It will threaten their working conditions; it will affect and undermine their productivity, and it will make it more difficult for them to carry out their jobs with pride.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Tom Peters, in in Search of Excellence, when he looked at the most successful companies, pointed out that you can’t separate the interests of the employer from the interests of the employees. That means you can't advance the cause of the employer — which is the taxpayer in this province — by bashing the employee and taking away employee rights and interests. But that's what this bill does, and if the members on the other side weren't so blinded by their own ideology, they could actually learn from recent history.

In 1983 the Socreds attacked the men and women who work in the public service through legislation, through arbitrary layoffs, through careless reductions in working conditions and the level of service — all in the claim of efficient government. And morale took a nosedive. The people who were demoralized were not productive. You can't be a productive worker if you're demoralized and being attacked and worrying about your compensation and your job.

[ Page 11713 ]

Thousands of person-years of work were lost during that time, but no one on that side of the floor looked at that cost when talking about government efficiency. No one has looked at the cost in productivity and the loss of skills and productive hours from people working in the public service.

Again, you might think that they could have learned, because in the last round of bargaining with the BCCEU, this government had to significantly increase salaries for some skilled occupations because they discovered that they could no longer attract skilled workers to come and work for the government. But, Mr. Speaker, this government doesn't learn. It says it does, it spouts all the right lines, but its real motives are clear in its actions.

Yesterday in this House while we were talking about the job protection bill, members on the other side showed what they really think about public sector workers. They said the only real jobs being done in this province were in the private sector. In saying that, they are telling the people of this province that the work being done by teachers and nurses isn't real. They are saying that the work being done by fisheries biologists, by social workers and by clerks isn't important and isn't valuable. That's the message that this bill contains. This bill is telling health care workers working in our hospitals, facing bed closures, facing lay-offs, facing waiting-lists for patients to get needed surgery, that what they're doing isn't valued and isn't important. This bill is telling teachers — who are struggling with a new curriculum brought forward by this government and the integration of special-needs children into classrooms with inadequate and overcrowded classes — that the work they're doing isn't important.

It says that the people doing those things — the men and women working in the public service in this province — are not as important as ministers' political aides who receive increases of up to 20 percent just weeks before the Premier comes on TV to say he's going to cap public sector salaries. That's the hypocrisy of this bill, Mr. Speaker: there's one standard for political friends and another standard for the men and women who work in the public service of the province.

This bill extends beyond just hurting working people. It has the potential to affect the health and safety of employees and clients who receive services through the public sector.

[3:45]

The bill says working conditions are a part of compensation. That means that employees who are bargaining with a public sector employer have the choice of either worrying about safety for themselves and their fellow workers and their clients, or worrying about getting a fair wage. It says that they can either consider the adequacy of the service that they are providing to the public through things such as class size, or they can worry about whether their paycheque is going to be large enough to provide for their families in the months to come. No employee in this province should have to make the choice between fair wages and the safety of workers and the adequacy of public services. That's what this bill means.

The men and women who work in the public service in this province are motivated; they are hard-working; they are skilled; and they have a sincere interest in delivering good public services. The public sector are not second-class citizens. They do first-class jobs, and they deserve better treatment than being used as a political scapegoat by this government.

If this government really wants to ensure that taxpayers get the best value for the dollars they spend on public sector wages, and if this government really wants to ensure that the quality of services provided to the public through public servants does not suffer, it should value them, it should treat them fairly, and it should bargain with them fairly — not kick them in the stomach every time they need another cheap election issue.

MR. COUVELIER: I am delighted to rise in my place and speak in favour of Bill 82.

It seems to me, in listening to the rhetoric from the members opposite, that once again they have fallen into the easy trap of mindless criticism with no sense of responsibility of what it is we're here to do. It has always struck me, as I have listened to the debates in this hall, that one of the limitations imposed on us by the parliamentary system is a failure for us collectively to arrive at the best approach to deal with the emerging problems of the moment.

That brings me to the opening point I want to make, which is: what is the appropriate role for a government which, by virtue of holding office, has access to particular information that demands — if you have a sense of responsibility of office — to be addressed?

This bill has been carefully considered and is a well-crafted response by the government to what I believe is one of the most demanding and pressing problems facing the nation today. If you doubt that we are attempting to deal with what is a national problem, you only have to look at the spoken word of our federal leaders and at the actions and spoken words of provincial governments right across this country.

B.C. is not an island unto itself. We must retain our relevance with the country as a whole, and we must always be appreciative of the fact that we are in an internationally competitive situation. We are an exporting province. In determining public policy, we must always recognize that we are in a constant battle for customers; we're in a constant battle to attract investment income; we're in a constant battle to increase the number of jobs for British Columbians, because our population grows faster than that of any other province by virtue of the fact that Canadians are moving here because of the aggressive, dynamic and farsighted leadership this government has given over the last four and a half years.

We have, then, some needs to address the public policy issues of the moment. I happen to think that a government's responsibility is to plan for the future. I

[ Page 11714 ]

happen to think that when the history books are written about this administration, they will say, first of all, that it never abandoned its responsibility for long-range strategic planning. I believe this administration has consistently made the hard decisions that were required to be made to ensure that our economy continued to grow and prosper. There has been no administration in the country which has matched our job creation efforts — none.

We are perceived by our peers across the country as leaders in the area of job creation and in the area of keeping an economy vital and growing. It is recognized across Canada; it is recognized internationally. I can tell you, by virtue of my international travels over the last four years, that I tell the truth. We are perceived as responsive leaders who are determined to ensure that our province continues to prosper.

What does the populace expect of its government? They expect, first of all, stability. They expect integrity, a willingness to change and adapt to meet new and changing circumstances, and leadership. If you wrap all those things together with the economic dynamics of the moment, they will tell you this bill is absolutely essential if we are going to remain competitive in the international marketplace.

Obviously the public sector cannot afford to get too far ahead of the private sector in terms of wage settlements. I have heard members opposite during this debate make the point that those lines are meeting and that there is no longer that wide divergence between public and private sector settlements. That is true. You are absolutely correct when you make that point.

But what you fail to recognize, of course, to the unfolding dynamic which will occur over the next 12 months in this province in the private sector. You only have to look at wage settlements in the lumber industry south of the border to understand that the coming negotiations with our wood-fibre workers are going to obviously restrict the flexibility that either side can make in their demands.

The fact of the matter is that we are in a tougher, competitive race now with our lumber and woodfibre products than ever before, by virtue of the fall-off of U.S. housing starts and, therefore, the forced look by U.S. producers internationally. For the first time, our wood-fibre industry is having tough bidding wars with U.S. wood-fibre exporting firms who were, prior to the fall-off in U.S. housing starts and the U.S. recession, serving the domestic market.

Our competitive position has been exacerbated by economic events south of the border. If you recognize that truth — and it is a truth — and if you recognize that the largest number of private sector settlements in our recent ten-year history are going to occur this year, and you understand that the private sector settlements in this largest employer group in the province are obviously going to come in at one of the lowest levels in years, then it's critical we ensure the public sector remains relevant to what is happening in that private sector.

British Columbia, unlike the other Canadian provinces, has a unique future in the Pacific Rim. It is a highly competitive marketplace, but it also to the most rapidly growing marketplace in the world. If we collectively — members opposite and members on the government side — can appreciate the importance of always remaining competitive and always enhancing our partnership opportunities in the Pacific Rim, we can ensure that our children will have jobs in the future. This bill will help accommodate that outcome.

If you question my comments on what is happening elsewhere in Canada, let me put on the record some of the statements made by other provincial governments. For example, the province of Saskatchewan has already announced a 4 percent cap on public sector settlements. As I understand it, unlike British Columbia, the socialist opposition in Saskatchewan is prepared to cooperate with the government of that province in dealing with its fiscal situation.

My friends, if we have the interests of British Columbia at heart here in this building, in this room, surely we would work in a cooperative fashion to attempt to solve the issues we are facing, which are a limited ability to pay the escalating cost of public services and a lack and continued erosion of our competitive capabilities.

Let me tell you about Manitoba. Manitoba will be limiting civil service pay hikes to 3 percent. The guidelines that the minister tabled today give you a feel for the range in which we believe we can afford to pay in this province. You know full well, members, that those guidelines will likely result in settlements exceeding what Manitoba is freezing and enforcing by edict. This bill does not violate the normal collective bargaining process. We do not intrude. We merely provide guidelines.

Let me tell you, my friends, what Manitoba has also said. They are prepared to see zero increases in the areas of education and Crown corporations, zero increases for the civil service in year one and then leave the second year open.

In Newfoundland, they have frozen the salaries of all 35,000 public servants for a year. In that province, by virtue of its particular financial difficulties, people are facing the closing of 360 acute-care hospital beds and the elimination of some school board positions, and they're terminating many courses and positions in the community college system. They've introduced legislation to initiate a one-year wage freeze — once again, an action this government is not contemplating.

I think that when it comes to the public; sector, it's important to understand that we have capable, dedicated, bright public servants with a genuine desire to serve the needs of the taxpayer. Unlike other jurisdictions in the country, we are not forcing something on them. We are saying: "There are tough times ahead. We're all going to have to tighten our belts." The Premier has announced a freeze for all of us in this chamber, and of course we support that. But more than that, we've said that in the area of our public sector employees, the bargaining process must proceed unfettered. But we have guidelines. We've ap-

[ Page 11715 ]

pointed a commissioner to examine any negotiated settlements so that he might judge whether they fit the guidelines. If they don't, he will not make a ruling. He will merely send them back with the advice that they don't meet the guidelines.

I admit that that is a unique way to approach the problem. If we had not had the historical performance of the compensation stabilization commissioner to prove that it works, you might have a valid criticism in saying it's a wild experiment. But, my friends, it worked in 1982, and with these adaptations it will work in 1991.

One of the difficulties we always have in this House is the rhetoric that our supporters pick up. I happened to catch, just before I came into the chamber this afternoon, a publication that I gather is put out by one of the union groups that are obviously supporting the opposition — financially and with their daily rhetoric. I was struck by some of the quotes, which are unfortunately misleading and inaccurate, and which no one.... The way our media representation is made and the way the rhetoric flows back and forth across the room, no one rebuts this kind of inaccurate statement.

Let me quote page 1 of this publication, The Provincial: "The Premier's privatization scheme has failed miserably." My friends, there is absolutely no evidence to justify that kind of comment. When we privatized highways, we published the financial information to support our contention that privatization saved $100 million in the first term of the contract. That's recorded in the books of account. It's audited by the auditor-general, and he comments about the validity and accuracy of that statement. There is no way this kind of rhetoric....

I go on to quote this document: "The province lost millions of dollars in the Expo land deal." My goodness, how often have we talked about the Expo land deal in this chamber? Let's just repeat once more for the record the fact that that property was sold by international tender. Let's confirm once again that the highest bidder won the contract. Let's confirm once again that there was a profit made in the transaction. That profit has been booked and audited by the auditor-general, and the records so state. So to the allegation that there has been a loss, my friends, you just refuse to recognize the record.

I'm prepared to concede that had everyone in 1986 had the comfort of prior knowledge that the real estate market would continue to rise, it might have been wise to have thought about whether or not we wanted to sell it. But I ask you to consider the economic times of 1986. Everyone in this chamber was almost paranoid about having a post-Expo depression in this province. We heard statements from the members opposite about the inevitability of that occurring. You were telling us constantly that we had to do something to make sure that we did not have a post-Expo recession.

So this administration cut the sales tax and put $250 million more in disposable income into the pockets of British Columbians. This administration decided to sell Expo to the highest bidder, no matter where they were born, no matter what their colour, no matter what their religion or their political beliefs. The highest bidder got it, and we made a profit on it.

What flowed from that? You know as well as I do; we had an explosion of real estate values in the city of Vancouver as a consequence of the renewed international interest in Vancouver as a centre of some international stature.

If you were given the problem we had in 1986 immediately after taking office — how best to make sure that this province we're all so proud of did not fall into a post-Expo recession — how would you have crafted an economic strategy, my friends? You would have had to do exactly the same thing we did. You would have had no choice, because the dynamics of that moment required aggressive leadership. They required confidence in decision-making and a teamwork approach to solving public policy issues.

[4:00]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I'm back to this publication which is so full of erroneous comments. It goes on to say that the quality of highways maintenance has deteriorated in some areas because some private operators choose high profits over public safety. My friends, nothing could be further from the truth. When we had an illustration of an inadequate level of service, the Minister of Transportation and Highways dealt with it. I can tell you that in my riding the quality of highways maintenance has improved. I'll tell you why. It wasn't because the private sector managers were so smart; it wasn't because they were so profit hungry that they squeezed everything out of the contract. It was because they were successful in maintaining the government employees onto their staff, injecting a spirit of team work — something that I really wish the members opposite would join us in embracing: an element of team work. The consequence of a properly motivated workforce with confidence in their management is an improved level of service, and it does not have to mean an increased cost.

We said when we privatized highways maintenance that all of those 28 highway districts would likely not result in repeating of the contracts in some areas. We recognized that many of the employees who decided to go in business for themselves might not have the capability of seeing that contract through. We predicted that we would have problems in some areas. Refresh your memory. Look into Hansard. You will see that we told you we didn't expect all 28 districts to be a success. But we said then that we guaranteed the majority would, and by God, they have been.

So what have we done with highway maintenance? We've created not only an improved level of service at a reduced public cost but we now have a dedicated, highly motivated workforce that I think will ensure that future contracts are equally economical in addressing the needs of the country.

Let me go on to an editorial in this publication — this publication that contains so many inaccuracies.

[ Page 11716 ]

This publication makes reference to the fact that no one should shed too many tears for the government and its senior government officials about the freeze of wages. It says: "They have received higher wage increases than any other group of public employees since this administration was elected."

My friends, let me tell you some facts of life. First of all, the statement is not true. As you know, the salaries for members in this House have been reasonable and have followed established market conditions, so we have not been heavy-handed in terms of rewarding ourselves. But even if that were true, you are as guilty as we are in that respect, and I trust you would agree that you are not greedy and bottom-line oriented and self-serving and that you haven't consistently voted for wage increases because you didn't earn them. If you supported them — and you did — you obviously felt that we were keeping pace and not demanding too much of the taxpayers.

Your supporters, the ones who make financial contributions to your party, should not be allowed to get away with that kind of garbage. If we all are so mindless, as you seem to characterize with these publications, then, my friends, you are as guilty as we are, and don't try to paint it otherwise.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Second reading is to the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill is laid out in the explanatory notes behind the first page. I am having a little difficulty equating some of the member's arguments to the principle of the bill. Perhaps the member could take recognition of that in his concluding remarks. Thank you.

MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly mollified by your remarks and will attempt to abide by your rules. I would only ask that you might impose the same kind of discipline on the members opposite. I was listening in my office to some of these comments, and it seemed to me they wandered all over.

The issue then comes to the need for this bill at this point in time. As has been stated by other speakers on the government side, our country Canada is in the depths of a recession. We in this province are not yet in the depths of a recession, and we are hopeful that with continued effective management of economic policy by this side of the House we can stay out of that recessionary mood. We certainly are in a downturn; things are tight. It requires every British Columbian to tighten the belt, have an appreciation of the dynamics of the times, and be prepared to accept their obligation as responsible citizens dealing not only with problems of today but problems of the future.

I believe this bill then, Mr. Speaker, continues the precedent established with the very first sitting of this administration in this room. We will never forfeit our short-term political goals to the expense of necessary long-term strategic planning. There are some things that are so important that you do not violate them for partisan political gain. And the kind of rhetoric that I've heard from the members opposite tells me that you are going to vote against this bill.

But I suspect, were I to be a fly on the wall in the caucus room of the socialists opposite, that there would have been comments like: "Well, you know, it's something that's really needed. We'd better not be too vociferous, because we know it's necessary. However, most of our financial hell and most of our volunteer workers, of course, come from the sectors who are going to be asked to be responsible British Columbians. Therefore we cannot lose that support, and we must appear to continue to be opposed to something that is vitally necessary."

I suspect that those of you who appreciate the truth about Canada's economic situation and our prospective economic situation privately agree within the confines of your caucus room that this is probably essential. Were you — in your wildest flight of fancy — to be successful in winning the next provincial election, I would rather think that you would not be rescinding this particular piece of legislation this year.

My friends, you know as well as we do that it is necessary. You know as well as we do that our children and their jobs will depend upon a continuation of this kind of determination. Some things are larger than partisan differences, and this is one of them. It is time in our economic development and growth for us to pass this bill, to understand that we are still the best-off province in Canada in economic terms and to appreciate that if you really care about jobs in your own riding. It is essential that the public sector not get too far ahead of the private sector. This bill, with the flexibility we give the commissioner, will ensure that outcome.

I ask you in all seriousness to do what your colleagues are doing in Saskatchewan. Develop a spirit of cooperation and an appreciation of the economic times, drop your partisan quibbling and rhetoric and join this side of the House in doing something that is very essential for the times.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I enjoyed listening to the former Minister of Finance talk about whether or not we had one message in caucus and one message for the House. We are the New Democratic Party — not the Social Credit Party, who have many messages both inside and outside their caucus, and inside and outside their party.

Let's look at some of those differences, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Labour has just returned to the House. Let's hear what he has to say about Bill 82: "My role is to try and foster better relations between employers and the employees. My personal choice is for free, unobstructed collective bargaining. But cabinet has made a choice in fact to do something different than that." Those are the differences in Social Credit, and they don't exist on this side of the House.

The former Minister of Finance, who has just finished speaking, speaks of restraint. He spoke of restraint while he was the minister; he still speaks of restraint. Yet we have the Minister of Economic Development, who isn't shovelling money out of the back of the truck anymore; he's driving down the

[ Page 11717 ]

freeway with the tailgate open.... He's talking about that. What British Columbians and the business community in British Columbia are looking for is stability, continuity and their dollars spent very wisely. That is not happening in British Columbia.

Bill 82, the Compensation Fairness Act, sends a message of confusion to British Columbia businessmen, to investors and to investment confidence. While on one hand the government allows 12 percent to 20 percent increases in salaries for senior political aides, senior business leaders in this province this year are taking zero increases. Small business is taking a pay cut. Yet this province hands out 19 percent and 20 percent wage hikes for its senior employees. Under Social Credit the cost of living has gone up 19 percent, yet deputy ministers have got a 59 percent pay hike since this government took office. Political appointees have been given a 35 percent wage hike since this government took office. We only have to recall one political appointee, David Poole, the secretary to the Premier, who after 18 months of service walked away with $175,000 to keep his mouth shut.

Government employees are diligent workers; they are caring. This bill is a slap in the face to them. It identifies them as unworthy of decent pay. It identifies that maybe they don't work very hard. Maybe it's true what people say about them: they take long lunch hours, and they travel around the province and collect travel points. That's not true, Mr. Speaker. The government owes more to the workers of this province than that kind of message. This bill will foster labour unrest in the province. It will again send a message to those investors, and it will again ruin investor confidence in this province.

Key professionals are leaving this province. Nurses are travelling away time and time again. Why? There are other areas in Canada, in the United States and in the world that recognize their importance and are willing to compensate them fairly and honestly and treat them on a level playing-field.

[4:15]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

This bill will hurt women in this province who earned 66 percent of what men earned in 1966 when this government took office, and who now only earn 60 percent.

Instead of spending money travelling around on jets in this province, this government should be spending money on ambulance service and on ambulance workers in this province. Instead of wasting money on empty offices in this province, this government should be treating its employees fairly.

Last year we passed the Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act. It was an act that came in, it was enacted upon and it went out. The government should disclose immediately the cost of that exercise — the wasted dollars that were thrown away on that government inaction. What message are we sending to the business community with that kind of legislation? It is not a message the business community enjoys seeing.

Indeed, what are the revenues of this province? Are we to have a true account of the finances? Are we to know whether we can afford to pay workers more or less? This Minister of Finance refuses to bring down a budget. Today he talked about an interim bill. We don't need an interim bill.

British Columbians and the business community have a right to know the true state of B.C.'s finances, the true state of the deficit in this province. Employees, whether they're public or private, deserve to be treated fairly in this province. They deserve to be treated equally on a level playing-field— not one group being treated more equally than another group; not senior management given wage increases that would shame even members of this House. Truly this government has one rule for friends and insiders and one rule for working British Columbians.

If we enact this bill, will there be adequate education funding to assure that we have well-trained people to enter the business community; that we have adequate health care to see that those people are cared for and are put back into the workplace as quickly as possible, instead of waiting for months and sometimes years on waiting-lists where employers can no longer count on those employees returning to work to increase the productivity of this province, to turn out those goods and services that make British Columbia great and keep it on a strong physical road?

This government has mismanaged the economy. It has emptied the bank accounts, it has no budget, it has no plan, and it is trying to hide fiscal mismanagement at the cost of government employees. The government has to get its spending priorities right in this province.

The message to investors and to the business community should be that we have a good education system; that their young children, when they move to this province with those investments, will receive the best education in the world; that their employees will be well trained and taught by adequately compensated teachers; that they will receive good health care because we have adequately paid health staff. We need a well-educated, highly-skilled workforce in order to move this province ahead. This bill will not accomplish that.

Professional workers will leave this province. There will be an exodus of highly-skilled people that work not only in the public service. They will go to better fields. The dollars we have invested in their education will be lost to British Columbia forever, because this government does not recognize the value of their expertise.

The message to the investors should be that we have a well-trained, highly-skilled government workforce that enjoys working at a decent standard of living.

Planning for the future means a stable economy managed by a stable government that has the respect of the business community and the investor. This government is anything but stable. There is no leadership, there is no confidence from cabinet, there is no confidence from members opposite, there is no

[ Page 11718 ]

confidence in its own party, and definitely there is no confidence from the citizens of British Columbia.

What the citizens of British Columbia want is not Bill 82, but an election, so they can pass judgment on the fiscal mismanagement of this province and the way it unfairly treats its workers.

HON. J. JANSEN: I would like to speak in support of the compensation fairness program. I should preface my remarks by responding to the opening comments from the member for Alberni, who said that in his particular part of the House the message inside the caucus or outside the caucus, inside the House or outside the House, was always the same. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I agree with that, because the message is always the same — it's nothing. And having listened to the comments that the member made prior to me in the House, I've got to re-emphasize again: there is a nothing comment. Nothing has been said, in terms of this bill. It's all rhetoric.

The costs in the health care sector of our economy have been increasing at a rate far in excess of those in other sectors. In fact, the cost increase related to hospitals is four and a half times the rate of the population. Health expenditures in the province are twice that of provincial expenditures. Settlements to the health care workers have generally been proportionately far greater than those achieved by employees in other sectors of our economy. This legislation will send the message that there isn't a bottomless purse.

The health care industry employs approximately 100,000 people in the province. That constitutes about 80 percent of our health care budget; approximately $3.8 billion of the province's health care system is allocated to health care workers. We cannot have, nor would the employees want to have, the cost of that labour increase to the point where patient care must be compromised in order to accommodate it.

In no sector of the economy is the issue of the employer's ability to pay more critical than in the health care sector. A reduction in expenditures in any area resulting from a compensation package increase in excess of the ability of the employer to pay will inevitably have a negative impact on the standard of patient care.

Free collective bargaining in our health care system is a long-established right. The government respects that bargaining process and the right of the workers. But the taxpayers need a voice in the expenditure process too. They expect that the government will negotiate within its means and within the ability of the taxpayer to pay, because in the final analysis the government doesn't have dollars; it's the taxpayers who must pay the bill.

In light of all the layoffs and cutbacks in the private sector, and as a reaction to our recessionary economy, a fair compensation program to limit wage rates in the public sector is entirely defensible. It is not acceptable that massive layoffs follow an agreement in order to pay for it. The services we have come to expect are an integral part of our high standard of living. We must continue to strive for a balance between fair compensation and effective program delivery, and our ability to pay.

Our health care system has been recognized internationally in comparison to other nations as the best in the world. There has recently been a survey that indicates that Canada is at the top of an international scale in terms of satisfaction and quality of health care. The United States is number ten and Britain is number 11; Sweden didn't even make it onto that particular scale. For us to retain that system, we must ensure that our ability to pay does not compromise our services.

We keep on hearing from the other side about nurse layoffs, about shortages of nurses and that nurses are leaving in droves for other parts of Canada and other parts of the world. In fact, we currently have about 200 vacancies out of 27,000 nursing positions in the province.

We also hear about the sweetheart deal with the doctors, the 6,000 physicians and surgeons in the province who bill fee for service. I recall the comments of the opposition health critic when I was travelling with my son to go skiing one day. He was on the Rafe Mair show, and he was supporting the pension plan. The interview that was going on even raised the interest of my son, who said: "Can you believe this turkey?" I obviously chided my son that he had no respect for such a....

In subsequent conversation with the president of the BCMA, Dr. Fry, she told me that she had spoken to the Leader of the Opposition, who led her to believe that he too thought the deal was acceptable and right.

It has been called a pension plan for doctors by the opposition many times — I think that's the terminology the opposition uses.

MR. ROSE: A what?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You know pension plans, Mark. You've got four of them.

HON. J. JANSEN: Many of the opposition know a lot about pension plans, because they benefit from a lot of them.

The pension plans mean a substantially higher cost than what is involved here. The deferred income plan that was part of the package of negotiation was approximately a 2 percent cost. Pension plans, on the other hand, cost approximately 17 percent of salaries. So how can one logically compare a pension plan to a deferred income benefit plan which has no portability, no benefits until a certain age and no vesting until a certain age? It is a ruling by Revenue Canada to enable income sheltering in a deferred income plan.

From a standpoint of the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia, where we can remunerate doctors for services on the basis of a lump sum rather than a fee that has the attributes of both utilization increases and compounding, it is obviously to the benefit of the taxpayers to have a fixed amount of payment. Mr. Speaker, the deal with the doctors was no sweetheart deal. It was a good deal for the

[ Page 11719 ]

taxpayers, and it was a good deal for the physicians and surgeons.

Are we fair with our wages? We're hearing about the shortages of nurses that keep on appearing and nurse layoffs, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know where the nurse layoffs referred to by the opposition are happening. Why would you lay off nurses when you have 200 positions to be filled?

Are we fair with the nurses of the province of British Columbia? I've had an opportunity to meet many of them over the time of being Health minister. We pay the highest starting wage in all of Canada for nurses. We have the highest wages after six years of service, and the second-highest wage in Canada at the top end of the wage scale, after Alberta. Are we being fair? The answer must be: we are being very fair.

[4:30]

In the next little while we will be negotiating agreements with a number of unions. We have negotiated an agreement with emergency health services. We have negotiated an agreement with the BCGEU hospital workers and the municipal nurses. We intend to negotiate in the next little while agreements with the BCNU, which comprises $774 million of wages; the HSA, which comprises $309 million worth of wages; and the HEU, $701 million. In the next little while altogether we'll be negotiating wages costing $2.5 billion.

Reference was made to what is happening in other provinces. The concerns that I have as Health minister are the concerns that my colleagues have across the country. Newfoundland has had to lay off 800 workers in the health care system. They have had to close 360 beds because of inability to pay. I met today with the Minister of Health from the province of Manitoba, who indicated to me that the revenues of that province are flat. There is no growth — absolutely zero increase in revenues. That will mean that every dollar spent in a wage increase in the health care sector will have to be taken from another program, or it will have to be a borrowed dollar. There are no funds available.

Mr. Speaker, the comment respecting the commencement base date. There was some comment made that in fact the retroactivity of the plan was arbitrary. The guidelines that have been passed out respecting this bill explain very clearly the base date commencement and indicate by examples when this agreement or this compensation package would come into place.

There was also concern about the need to be competitive. In this guideline package we've listed three guidelines that determine the amount of compensation that cart be given: job security, the labour market and the competitive market. Within the health care system obviously we have a need for certain specialties which may require more income than what is normal in the public sector. The commissioner, through looking at the package, can provide for the ability of the public sector employer to recruit and retain employees in areas of demonstrable shortages of critical skills. So in fact the commissioner can take into consideration the extra requirements that some of our health care workers have.

I am concerned that a system which is allowed to grow without any accountability in terms of wages will result in very significant service reductions that we can ill afford in our health care system. I urge you members on the opposite side to put aside your ideology and recognize the problem that we'll be facing in the future, particularly in the health care system, and to work with the government in dealing with the pressures that will result in the future in a way that is understood and supported by the public.

I would urge all members of this House to support this legislation.

MS. A. HAGEN: We're debating this afternoon the principles of this bill, and I think it's very important that we get our principles straight and stack them up against what this bill purports to do. I would just pick up a statement made by the member for Saanich and the islands a moment ago where he noted that it was important not to have a failure to arrive at the best approach. I think what we have today with this piece of legislation is indeed a failure to arrive at the best approach.

The people on the other side of the House, who have been responsible for managing our province for the last four years as an administration, have clearly, I believe, in the minds of the public, failed that test over and over again. When we came back into the House a couple of days ago — it's now Wednesday; we've been here since Monday — we began to have an opportunity to explore some of those failures and some of the reasons, to quote the Minister of Health who just spoke, that they are claiming there are no funds available and are presenting a doom-and-gloom story.

This group of people on the other side of the House — the Socred administration — would have us misled about the double standard that they have been working on over the last number of years. Most people understand double standards in terms of very concrete examples. There is no more telling example to a nurse, a health care worker, a home support worker or a teacher than the example of the Minister of Finance who defends a 20 percent increase to his executive assistant for this coming year — to the tune of $58,000 a year plus expenses, I would note. We look at that in comparison with the salaries of many people who work in the public sector: women who work for wages that we know are less than the poverty line if they are with families; nurses who are struggling with wages that we know don't bring us into equity with other sectors; beginning teachers with five years' experience who are earning a fraction of the salary that's going to an executive assistant. When we stop to talk about fairness, I believe those examples really tell the tale.

We are looking at a government spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising. We are looking at the government mismanaging its Building Corporation in terms of space that lies empty at

[ Page 11720 ]

phenomenal cost. And this government tries to tell us that there's fairness in this legislation.

The second thing I think we have to look at is the actual substance of the bill. We've heard across the floor today, mostly from the Minister of Finance, the words "nonsense, nonsense, nonsense," as we have looked at the substance of this bill and the specific details of it. One of the things I believe we can do on this side of the House is read. We can read that this bill in fact allows the government absolutely unlimited powers. Whether they exercise them or not, it allows them relatively unlimited powers in terms of collective bargaining and collective agreements.

It allows them to say that agreements which were signed between two parties — between a school board and a teachers' association; between the workers in a long-term-care facility and the proprietors and operators of that facility — are null and void and that they can retroactively change those contracts. They have the right to draw back dollars that have gone into the pockets of workers and, if the commissioner rules that that is the case, there is no appeal. That is the kind of legislation described in this particular document.

Then today the Minister of Finance drops on our desks some guidelines. The guidelines are intended to provide some basis for the implementation of legislation, but we hear from the other side that these are not guidelines; they are rules that would be laid down by the government's appointed commissioner, and they will apply to hundreds of thousands of working people in this province.

I want us to remember who those working people are, and I want us to remember it in the context of what I believe are the public's priorities. Like most of my colleagues in this House, I've spent the last number of months in my riding. Recently I called together a group of people who work in what I call the people service part of my community. They were people from education, from health, from the social services, from the police and from the voluntary sector. We talked about what this province needs in the future. We talked about what should be the priorities of government; how we could manage to provide the very many services, whether they are to children in our classes, children who are developing normally or children who have special needs, children who are new to our country or children who are in danger of dropping out; how we can provide services to families; how we can deal with the challenge of providing services in hospitals.

I want to just comment before this House today about a couple of the perspectives they brought back, because they do pertain to the principles of this bill. Among our working people, and particularly among the people who have the challenge of providing people services, there's a real awareness that our resources are not infinite, and that we do have to bring new ideas and new methods to bear on how to make sure those services are maintained and provided as effectively as possible.

Those people were talking about what in management language is called productivity, but I believe they were talking about something much more important. They were talking about how they, working cooperatively and working within the community, could look at means to make sure services were delivered in our schools, in our hospitals, in our long-term-care facilities, among our police, in all of those areas. They were looking for leadership that called upon them and their provincial government, their municipal governments, their school boards and their voluntary agencies to find ways of working cooperatively with resources we know are not infinite.

[4:45]

They were not looking for legislation that intrudes on their fundamental rights to work toward collective agreements that provide them with compensation in a fair and reasonable manner. They were not looking for legislation that goes beyond anything most of us have seen in the powers that it gives to this government.

The reasons we are opposing this bill have a great deal to do with the kind of province we want to see after the next election. It is a province, in fact, where we are not setting people one against the other; where people in the public sector and people in the private sector are treated fairly; where we recognize that we have challenges to face in the provision of the most important services which everyone agrees are essential to our economic and social well-being. Anything that erodes or brings demoralization or destabilization or unfairness into that challenge and that work is counterproductive to the very things that are most important to us.

This government speaks about planning. It's not the subject of this bill to talk about planning, but let me just speak in the field of education for a moment. The past Minister of Education — whom we are going to miss in that role — and the new Minister of Education have taken on probably one of the most challenging tasks we have in British Columbia: to work with the parents and teachers, support staff and young people of our community around an education system that prepares us to be the workers, the parents and the community activists we need in the future. We need to do that job in a spirit that recognizes it is going to require all our energy, our financial and human resources.

I remember all too well that in the 1980s we lost a whole generation of teachers in this province because of an earlier, flawed effort of this same Socred government — a different administration — in another time when we had economic challenges to meet.

Let me come back to the comment of the member for Saanich and the Islands. We have in this bill a failure to arrive at the best approach, and that is the reason we cannot support it.

MR. ROSE: I didn't expect to be speaking as early as I am; I thought there might be another speaker from the other side. But since I have....

Interjection.

[ Page 11721 ]

MR. ROSE: It's not up to me to look, Mr. Minister of Labour; it's up to the Speaker in the chair to make these decisions.

Since I'm on my feet I might as well carry on. I will soldier on. I warn everybody out there in television land not to adjust their set — it's my shirt.

Last July when I left here and after a lot of people said some nice things about me, I never thought I'd have to be back. I began to wonder: "Why am I back?" When I left I said I would miss my friends around here. But having to come back here to listen to hours and hours of the self-serving, self-righteous twaddle that we've heard over the last two or three days is very hard on an elderly person. It almost makes me want to go out early in the afternoon to have some warm milk and cookies, which I once suggested for the former Minister of Education when his blood pressure was rising during one of the earlier debates.

Mr. Speaker, this is a desperate attempt to re-elect a discredited government. That's why we're here. In football we would call it a Hail Mary play: with 30 seconds to go, you send all the receivers downfield, throw the bomb and hope somebody catches it before the time runs out. Folks, your time has run out.

I asked myself when I was on my way here. "Will this be a session that answers our economic problems? Do we need one to answer our economic problems?" You bet we do. Will we get it? No, we won't. All we're going to have is a political session concocted by the Socred campaign committee. That's why we're here.

All we've got so far is two old, recycled Bennett bills. We've got one here called Bill 83, and there's Bill 82. We have the restraint bill and the critical industries commission. They've been dressed up in new names, but it's the same old stuff.

Today we're dealing with Bill 82 sponsored by our brand-new Minister of Finance — old puffy-and-rumpled over there. He's the one who every day dazzles us with interesting little quotes. The first day back he admitted that he had trouble getting into his own cranium. Yesterday when he was asked about what details there were and what kind of settlements the public sector could expect when Bill 82 was in place, he said: "The criteria are pretty straightforward. It's not hard to know when the suction doesn't equal the discharge." I think the minister got it backwards. As a well-known blowhard, his discharges are only exceeded by his suction.

At least he tries to answer questions. He tries them sometimes, but most of the time he gives them to somebody else: "Here you take this hot one. Let's give the hot one to the Premier. Give the other hot one to the Minister of Health." Or: "I'll take the question on notice." That's his favourite. But it's not my goal to give the minister a third degree today. He's already got two degrees he bought and paid for with his own good, hard-earned money. It's pure gaffle-bag.

The suction line rivals the Premier's line the other day during his attack on the member for New Westminster. I quote the Premier: "I'll admit, as I did after I was again suddenly ambushed by a media person...that I made a mistake. I said so following that, because I definitely was under the impression that something had occurred that obviously hadn't taken place." Now I don't know what that means; I don't understand that one.

We haven't come very far from the old Social Credit days when we had Phil Gaglardi. He stood up in the House one day — I think the Premier is copying him — and said: "If I told a lie, it's only because I thought I was telling the truth." This is just like a throwback to flying Phil Gaglardi. I don't know what it means.

Restraint in new clothes is called the Compensation Fairness Act. What it should be called is Forget Our Past Sins Act: "Let's divert attention and get onto something else." The Socred brains trust — if that's not an oxymoron — must certainly believe that anything that worked once might just possibly work again as time goes by. And there's a long time gone by, as the song says. But this time there will be no "play it again, Zalm."

Nor will the people of B.C. be bought off by pork-Bill 83, where the money's obviously going to be shovelled off the back of the truck "with the tail-gate open driving down the highway," as my friend from Port Alberni said. At the same time we're shovelling out the money with one hand, we're saying restraint with the other. These two seem to be contradictory, or perhaps I'm a little bit confused. But I don't think the people are confused at all. They're not going to buy that old stuff again — never, never again.

Other speakers have said that this bill is unfair because it scapegoats public servants. When you do that, you ultimately slash services to people — which may be your right-wing conservative agenda, because you really don't believe in public service anyway. You want to leave it all to the private sector — give it all to the private sector, instead of a balance.

You don't even believe in intruding into the economy. We believe we've got the right to fail. That's the free enterprise way. What have we got here? A massive intervention into the economy. On the one hand, it's giving out money from the back of the truck, on the other hand, it's asking many low-paid civil servants — I'm not saying they're all low-paid; neither should they be.... It's anti-working-people. Even our new Labour minister has said that. There he sits over there, the minister from Merritt — the thumper from Yale-Lillooet. Thump us a couple for Easter, will you?

It's anti-working-people. I've got a great faith in our minister from Yale-Lillooet. He said that this bill destroys collective bargaining. He says it's provocative. He must be right, because after all he is the Minister of Labour. I'm quite sure that he comes from a working background, and I'm quite sure he's a very good worker. He has worked for years and years in the trade union movement — I'm told by him, and I guess he knows what he's talking about. At least we haven't had a chance to find out he doesn't, which will come soon enough.

[ Page 11722 ]

So it's anti-working-people. It won't work. It's provocative. The minister says: "I don't like it, but I'll hold my nose and vote for it." That's better, I suppose, than "wriggling my nose."

The Business Council head, Jim Matkin, is perhaps worried about provocation, confrontation, unrest, back to 1983, people marching in the streets. He said that public sector wages are not running ahead of private sector wages. So if that's the case, maybe this is based on a false premise. Maybe this bill is merely an attack.

It's also anti-women. It's anti-women because most low-paid people in our society are women. And it's anti-consumer. You talk about helping small business. Those 200,000 public servants are 200,000 shoppers at local stores. That's who they are.

Let's just think, Mr. Speaker, about whether or not the government is actually protecting their jobs. I talked to one of the building maintenance people here last night. I said to this person....

HON. MR. RABBITT: Name names.

MR. ROSE: I will not name names. I protected him — as I would protect you, and I know you need it.

I said to this person who was sweeping the floor: "How much do you get paid per hour?" Do you know what he said? He said. "Seven bucks an hour." That person makes less than $1,000 a month. His rent is $500 a month. Do you want to restrain him?

You've contracted it out. You've got dozens of immigrant women at Riverview under contract at the minimum wage there, too. These are the public servants you want to restrain. You're not going to restrain them. You're going to starve them to death. You're going to pick on the poorest, most unprotected segment of our society. That's what you're going to do. Do you want to chisel....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, protect me from these ravage attacks across the floor. Protect me from the Rabbitt pack over there.

Back to the bill. Do you want to chisel even more out of immigrant workers at Riverview or this poor guy who's sweeping floors around here. That's what you want to do. Those people are citizens, those people are consumers, and those people are also public servants.

[5:00]

If you really want to save money, cut out the big raises to the executive assistants; the doctors' pension plan, which is non-contributory; empty office space. Cut back on jet-set ministers if you want to save money — minor contributory... But don't try to further chisel some poor part-time worker.

Speaking of money, this bill is about restraint. Money was no object when it came to installing television here. I'm glad we have installed television here. I didn't like the temporary setup. When we had balanced budgets and surpluses in 1988, we suggested TV. Too expensive. It couldn't happen — far too expensive. Now, in the dying days of this last gasp session, we can have television. We're under restraint, but we can afford television.

It has been suggested by the hon. House Leader across the way that because we have television, somehow I can go home and watch myself on television. I would like to suggest that I will do that, but I sure as hell am not interested in watching him on television. Some of the speeches I have heard across the hall today would cause everybody to change their channel.

Why do we have this television? Well, one reason is to give some exposure to the invisible members that we have. We have some invisible members sitting over there hiding in the back benches of the Social Credit Party. They are known as the silent servants of the Socreds. These silent Socreds.... We haven't heard from them. Their mouths were taped with velcro in 1986, and they weren't allowed to open them until yesterday when we had television. So they were given a chance to shine yesterday. They came on in their cameo appearances praising every little whistle-stop and hamlet in their ridings and praising the job bill. They said: "Look ma, I'm on television; I really am. I really am in Victoria; I can prove it."

On Monday the Premier attempted to belittle the hon. member for New Westminster by calling her a backbencher who was seldom heard from. I think we better look at the record. The second member for Okanagan South in 1990, out of a total of 332 hours of debate, made nine interventions. The one for Columbia River sitting over there, who you heard speak yesterday for his cameo appearance, made three in 332 hours of debate. My old friend and flying partner from Mackenzie had five, but my friend from New Westminster had 23. Seldom heard from. Why, she's fairly loquacious, I would say — if not verbose. The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey made 38 interventions. Here again, he was in there. The second member for Cariboo: 29 interventions. Compare those. Let's have a look and see which side really speaks up for their constituents. It's no contest — "no la contesta."

Mr. Speaker, we're here jawboning. We should be campaigning, because people want a change, and they're going to get it. It's the last desperate attempt of the government — a discredited one — to find an issue. There's only one issue. It's this government and its record, and it's a sorry record. It's Easter time, Mr. Speaker, and I feel very charitable.

Let me close by saying: is the government in chaos? The government has laid an egg, and now it's desperately trying to pull the rabbit out of the hat.

HON. MRS. GRAN: It's very difficult to follow the rhetoric from across the floor. But before speaking to Bill 82, I'd like to say that the opposition House Leader is probably one of the finest people and probably has the best sense of humour of anyone in this House, but he also has some other interesting things in his life that might be pointed out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Teacher's pension.

[ Page 11723 ]

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, teacher's pension.

The defence of public servants by the opposition side of the House has some conflict to it, I believe. I'm not suggesting that public servants shouldn't be able to run for office, nor should you suggest that business people shouldn't be able to run for office. It's my understanding that the opposition House Leader has three, four or five public service pensions. Now that means that you've contributed a great deal....

MR. ROSE: I've made a lot of contributions.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, you have — in terms of money and your time. But it also tells me, and it should tell all of us, that there is a lot to be gained by working in the public service as compared to the private sector. That example says everything.

The member also asked the Minister of Labour if he came from a working background. What does that mean — a working background? Do people work differently in the private sector than they do in the public sector? Or do they work differently for unions than they do for somewhere else? Every once in a while a little term comes up across the way that makes me wonder what they actually think.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, it does.

Anyway, I stood up to talk about and to support Bill 82. As the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs I want to defend this bill in terms of fairness for women, because fairness is what this bill is all about. The predominant principle in Bill 82 is fairness for everyone — fairness for the public sector and fairness for the private sector.

I want to also share with the House and those poor people watching us — if they still are — what a previous member of this House said to me about being in opposition: how much fun it was because you didn't have to do your homework, you didn't have to have any facts and you could stand up in this House and say whatever you felt like saying and not be held accountable. That's right: say anything. But on the government side of the House, it's quite different. We are accountable for what we say. But let me tell you members of the opposition, you too are going to be accountable for some of the things you've said. You truly are.

I want to talk about our government's pay equity plan introduced last year. Our pay equity plan has been lauded by unions and by everyone that has come in contact with it as the very best pay equity plan in Canada. That's really interesting for a government which, the opposition say, doesn't care about women. This is the best initiative in all of Canada. It helps women, and it doesn't hurt our employers' ability to pay. It is not involved in the bargaining process. It is a separate process, one where government and the union are working together. I don't believe that Bill 82 is intended to, nor will it, affect pay equity programs throughout the rest of the public service. For the opposition to try to use the fear that in some way women are going to be hurt by the fairness of this bill is irresponsible.

The first payment in good faith of this pay equity program went out to some 13,000 women in the public service in January, and I have no hesitation in saying that before the pay equity program is fully implemented in our own public service. It will be copied throughout the province and probably even the rest of the country.

Women's Programs supports very clearly the notion that we have to care about the employer's ability to pay. That's going to help a lot of longtime discrimination that has gone on in both the public and private sectors. This bill is not intended to, nor will it, negatively impact the processes of pay equity or employment equity.

As legislators we have a responsibility to the people we represent, and many of those people are public servants. We have a responsibility to see that they do retain their jobs, and that means sometimes that wages have to be controlled, because the other side to that is cuts in ministries and layoffs of employees. This government does not support that concept but instead supports fairness for all employees in the public sector.

Taxation at all levels of government — and I'm sure the opposition members would agree with me — must be controlled.

HON. S. HAGEN: They're not concerned about that.

HON. MRS, GRAN: Well, 1 understand from some of their candidates who are being a little more honest about that issue that taxes have to go up under an NDP government. My understanding is that the promises come to an additional $6 billion. I have to wonder where an additional $6 billion will come from.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: From the taxpayer.

HON. MRS. GRAN: It's coming from the taxpayer, but how will the taxpayers ever be able to pay that kind of bill and face that kind of inequity in their lives? The critic for Women's Programs says that over the next three years she would triple what we pay in child care subsidies. This year we will be paying some $60 million; times three, that makes it a very onerous bill for the taxpayers.

I think it's time that we talked about the differences between Social Credit and NDP Nowhere do the differences become more obvious than in Bill 82. It's interesting that in the four and a half years I've been an elected member of this House, I have not heard members on that side of the House stand up and say one complimentary thing about business. The constant rhetoric has to do with public servants, with teachers, with nurses; it has to do with anyone who is employed either in the public service or by a

[ Page 11724 ]

union. I don't have a problem with that, except that in fairness you should care about the private sector, because without the private sector — without the jobs created by the private sector — there is no money to pay for all of the programs that all of us in this place want to keep going for the people we all serve.

I believe that fairness is inherent in this bill and that anything said by the NDP to make the public fearful of what we're doing will backfire on the NDP; I truly do believe that. I think that the member for Saanich and the islands is quite right about what gets said behind closed doors by the NDP. I believe that you probably do support this bill very quietly, but that the debts owed by the NDP are far too great for you to publicly say: "Yes, we agree. Public expenditures must be controlled."

[5:15]

Before I conclude my remarks, I want to pay tribute to the public servants who work for government. Many of them have a better understanding of government expenditures and of why we need controls than any member in opposition will ever have. Many public servants who work for the provincial government understand very clearly that Bill 82 will help them keep their jobs and their benefits — quite the opposite of what the NDP suggest. So I just want, on behalf of government, to pay tribute to those people for the hard work, the dedication, the loyalty and the years they have put into public service. There is an appreciation for those people.

I want to end my remarks by saying, as one of the MLAs for Langley, that I also appreciate the intent of this bill because of the constituents I represent, many of them families. In fact, Langley has the largest percentage of families per capita in the province. Many of those families are struggling to make ends meet, and the majority of them do not work for government. It is those people whom this bill is intended to help, and I don't apologize to anyone for that.

Mr. Speaker, I support Bill 82, and I applaud the government for bringing it in.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, it was a treat to listen to the Minister of Government Management Services, the minister responsible for 500,000 square feet of vacant government office space, give us her little lecture on spending.

It's clear, and it's been stated well by previous speakers, that we have a government in the dying days of its mandate that is desperate to find an issue. They don't have an issue; in fact, they've got a lot of trouble.

It was interesting to hear from the former Minister of Finance about what people expect of their government. I was quite intrigued by his speech. He listed stability as the first consideration that people would expect. We have a government in front of us that has seen 11 resignations from the cabinet benches. We've seen a stampede of executive members leaving their party and trying to form another party; we've seen a whole spate of nominated candidates head for the hills to avoid being labelled Social Credit; and we have a speech from that side talking about stability.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading — we're a little bit beyond the parameters. I realize that with the cameras here, people have taken certain liberties. We're going to have to tighten it up a bit, especially if the session goes on a little longer. The Chair would appreciate it if the member would occasionally relate his remarks to the principle of the bill.

MR. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that direction. Of course, I've been listening to previous speakers who strayed all over the map.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: On their side.

The former Minister of Finance — I would suggest he might have more credibility when he rises to speak in this House had he not abandoned the team — talked about the necessity of teamwork. The former Minister of Finance, who quit in a panic last week, talked about the necessity of having teamwork. In that respect, I'd like to quote from what the Minister of Labour had to say about this bill. I'll leave it to you to determine whether or not this is an example of Social Credit teamwork. The former Minister of Labour said: "My role is to try and foster better relations between employers and the employees. My personal choice is for free, unobstructed, collective bargaining." In other words, he opposes the bill.

MR. BLENCOE: He should resign, shouldn't he?

MR. MILLER: There used to be a point of honour among politicians when they had that kind of fundamental disagreement. They chose the honourable course, and they stepped aside. But we haven't come to expect that kind of behaviour from this administration.

Mr. Speaker, the bill talks the premise of the ability to pay. That's rather hollow, in view of some of the other activities we've seen in recent years. The House is well aware that we are in a disastrous agreement with the United States that has levied an additional $500 million a year on our forest industry. They are saying that we don’t have the ability to pay. This government isn't listening, and we see the result of that policy.

Mr. Speaker, when it came to building a massive superhighway — the Coquihalla — they went $500 million over budget. They were not the very least concerned about ability to pay. They were concerned about their own political agenda, and this bill is about their political agenda.

We had a very important debate during the session last year about a bill this government brought in to deal with labour relations. It was dubbed the "sunshine bill" and was an important element in this government's election strategy, which unfortunately was kiboshed. They've now had to abandon that bill

[ Page 11725 ]

at considerable expense, so we're now on to a new election strategy.

This government constantly pays lip-service to the notion of free enterprise, and on the other hand they constantly strive to intervene in free collective bargaining. There is a severe contradiction.

I have some experience in negotiations, and it has been my experience, both in the private sector and also as an alderman.... I learned quite early that what makes negotiations work best is two parties which freely approach the table with the spirit and intent to reach an agreement. That's what works best, and it is working. It is working, by and large, and we accept the free collective bargaining system as the best system. It operates in British Columbia and has operated well. There are occasional disruptions; those things happen in a free system. But a free system nonetheless allows parties to approach collective bargaining with the intent to achieve a collective agreement, and, with the right intent, normally that occurs.

We have seen in many jurisdictions around this province that that has taken place — that responsible elected public officials at the school board, municipal and regional district levels, in conjunction with their employees, have arrived at collective agreements. Those are responsible elected officials. Many of you on the other side of the House used to be in those positions as aldermen and mayors, as many of us on this side of the House indeed have the same experience. We felt confident of our ability to deal with our employees, and we felt confident that in arriving at settlements we could face the electorate who put us in those positions. We've done it time after time. We have faith in that system, and we have faith in our ability. This bill demonstrates that this government has no faith in those elected officials.

Mr. Speaker, in my constituency the school board and the teachers arrived at a collective agreement. It took them a long time. Through patient negotiations, with no disruption in the school system, with no antagonism and with no bad feeling, they arrived at a collective agreement that is satisfactory to the board and satisfactory to the teachers and I believe satisfactory to the community at large. This government is proposing to dip into the pockets of those teachers in the most intrusive way with a very intrusive piece of legislation, to force those employees who have freely negotiated a collective agreement to pay back amounts that exceed the guidelines in this bill.

If this type of legislation was even contemplated in business circles, you would send business fleeing. But they don't hesitate to bring in this kind of intrusive legislation when it comes to dealing with collective bargaining.

As I said at the outset, the reason is very clear. This is a desperate government. They've been in office for four and a half years, and they are at the lowest standing of any political party in the polls. The cabinet is defecting daily and weekly. Nominated candidates are fleeing. There are attempts to form a new party. They are in disarray, They don't have an election issue, and they are trying to manufacture an issue with this bill.

Let's go to an election today. My colleague who spoke before me was exactly right: the people are fed up, and they want to get onto the hustings. They want to express their opinion of this tired old government.

Mr. Speaker, this is an old, tired method. It has been tried and tried, and they're trying again. They are desperate. This will not work. The public will not be deceived. They are waiting patiently. They want to pass judgment on this government, and it's clear what they will do when this government gets the courage to go to the polls.

We reject the approach in this bill. We think the public will reject the approach in this bill. Let's get on — let the people of this province decide who they want for the government.

HON. MR. RABBITT: It's been an interesting day in here today. We have listened to a variety of opinions on where the government is going and where we've been. The last two speakers indicated to me, at least, that on the other side of the House there's a very shallow...and a lack of experience.

We heard some comments with regard to free, unobstructed collective bargaining. Let me tell the member for Prince Rupert that it was only under the free enterprise system that unions were able to sit down with management and develop the standard of living we have today. It wasn't under a socialist system. The free enterprise system and free collective bargaining have given us the highest standard of living in almost all the world, right here in British Columbia.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need Bill 82. But we know — or most of us who have spent enough time analyzing the economy of British Columbia would know — that we aren't living in a perfect world. We're in troubled economic times. As a matter of fact, Canada is in the midst of a recession, and we're feeling the ripple effect in British Columbia today. One of the reasons why that ripple effect is not as strong here as it is in Ontario is that this government, for the past four years, has developed long-range policies that have helped protect the economy of this province, policies that have been good for both workers and employers.

[5:30]

This affects me in my role as minister. My mandate — the member was quite correct — is to foster harmony between employees and employers in the collective bargaining process. The Minister of Finance's mandate is much different. The Minister of Finance's mandate is to develop an economic policy that will protect the economic well-being of British Columbia. It's a very awesome responsibility. This bill reflects that commitment.

I can tell you that this Minister of Labour is concerned about both the private and public sector workers. As an elected representative in this House, I'm worried and concerned about all people in my riding and in the balance of British Columbia. In a

[ Page 11726 ]

perfect world we would have free, unobstructed collective bargaining, but this is not a perfect world.

The Premier brought forward a 12-point program, and this bill is part of that 12-point program. It's part of a package that will protect both jobs and paycheques.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RABBITT: The member from the cast end of Vancouver can laugh about it, but it's serious business.

I met with the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, and he requested that the sunshine bill be removed. This bill does that. In the private sector, ability to pay is an accepted concept. This bill introduces that requirement to government.

The government House Leader alluded to my experience in the labour movement. I'll agree that it was fairly limited, but I did learn some lessons there.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RABBITT: It was the opposition House Leader who mentioned it today.

Let me tell you, as president of that local, being on strike for six and a half months, having the responsibility of several hundred members and watching their hardship firsthand, I was taught quite candidly that there are no easy answers.

The particular local which had the conflict was dealing with an employer which did not argue ability to pay. That particular employer had the ability to pay; it just didn't want to. That's very different from the situation we're in here today.

My experience as an alderman and as a mayor of the city of Merritt also taught me some lessons. It taught me that government does not have any money of its own. It taught me that the government's ability to pay is limited to the taxpayers' ability to pay.

We've heard many promises from the NDP. I'd like to draw your attention to a quote in last week's paper from Premier Bob Rae. Everybody in here knows who Bob Rae is, the NDP member who is Premier of the present government of Ontario. What did he say? These are promises that were made, promises that have actually gone through a convention. After the NDP annual policy convention, Premier Bob Rae said that what his party wants and what his party gets are two different things.

I'm really wondering today what would be so different between this group of socialists over here and the group from Ontario with the forked tongue. Reality says that this group here is the same as back there. They may have put on the blue pinstriped suits, but underneath, the underwear is still the same colour.

It was also mentioned earlier that we should be out on the hustings campaigning. But we've been elected, and we've still got months to go in this mandate. We're supposed to be in here doing the people's business. This government is doing the people's business. The 12-point program that the Premier has brought forward is doing the people's business. I can tell you right now, as the member for Yale-Lillooet and Minister of Labour, I will support the 12-point program and the package that this government is bringing in.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before recognizing the next speaker, I must remind members of a long-standing rule in this House which is going to be more widely abused because of the advent of electronic surveillance via Hansard. It bears on the matter that a member may not speak from any other seat than the one properly assigned to him or her. It's not that members are standing to speak from a seat that is not assigned to them, but members are occupying seats that are in the name of another member and assisting in the debate, albeit without having been first recognized by the Chair. Now on occasion, when a member is speaking, the person sitting at either side of the member is legitimately entitled to be sitting in that chair, and therefore we allow a little banter. However, the last speaker was assisted by people who were beside him, one of whom is entitled to be making remarks from that chair and one of whom isn't.

These are the rules. They are your rules. If you wish to change them we'll call a select standing committee to change the rules. But I intend to enforce them, and I would remind members of that.

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange, in fact very ironic, that the bill we're debating today is called the Compensation Fairness Act. One of the things we learned in January was that truth is the first casualty of war. We learned about Orwellian newspeak, and we knew how language could be manipulated to serve certain political ends. Very clearly, that's what's happening with the title of this bill.

When I see words like "fairness" and "openness" and "equality" on government documents or hear them from the lips of members opposite, I find it very strange and very ironic that those statements are made. What's implied in the title of this bill is that prior to this bill there was some unfairness. Where was that unfairness?

What's been unfair in the province of British Columbia is that we have a tired government, a government desperately clinging to power, a government in the last days of their mandate, struggling to find an election issue. They are desperate to find something that they can go to the people with that may give them some slim chance of being returned as government.

What's unfair in British Columbia, is that one of the methods they've chosen is this bill, a bill that is aimed at breaking contracts and settlements that have been arrived at through the process of collective bargaining, through negotiation, that parties have agreed to. This is a government that wishes to put limits on those settlements, not only on future settle-

[ Page 11727 ]

ments but to reach back in time and put caps on those settlements — roll back those settlements and in fact reach into the pocketbooks of people who have settled with their employers; in the public sector, have worked under those agreements and have been paid fairly under those contracts and agreements. That's what's in this legislation, and that's what's unfair. That's what this legislation is all about.

What's unfair is that we have a government that is quite willing, for their own self-serving electoral purposes, to pit taxpayers against public sector employees, to pit the private sector against the public sector and to play politics with the paycheques and jobs of hundreds of thousands of people on whom we rely in this province, and who serve in our health care system — the nurses and other health care workers we depend on in times of need. In this legislation the government is picking on the firefighters, the marine biologists and the people who serve us in this Legislature.

What's unfair is that this desperate government, whose mandate has run out, is willing to bring in divide-and-conquer tactics. They hope in their slimmest dream of dreams that they might be returned to power. That's not going to happen.

They want to make second-class citizens of a large segment of British Columbians. That segment, rather than being slapped around by changing the rules in midstream, should be shown the respect that we have for those individuals and the jobs they do in this province.

The assumption in this legislation is that there's something unfair about the agreements that have been arrived at in the province of British Columbia with respect to the public sector and the private sector.

I have before me the industrial relations bulletin from the Business Council of British Columbia. We know the Business Council of British Columbia is the largest employer in this province, and they published their wage settlement data for the year ending February 28, 1991.

If we listen to the side opposite, we would think that there would be some great gap in terms of settlements that have been arrived at in this province between the public and private sector. The most recent figures, for the month of February 1991, show that increases in the public sector have been 6.11 percent. This compares with the private sector, which had been at 6.23 percent. The 12-month total given by the Business Council of British Columbia shows that increases in the public sector have been 6.61 percent, and in the private sector almost the same — 6.06 percent. Not only that, over the last ten years the disparity between the settlements in the public sector and the private sector has been so close as to be negligible. The difference is 0.3 percent.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a fair bill; this is an unfair bill. The Social Credit mentality thinks that fairness is treating one segment in society quite differently than another. Social Credit fairness is singling out hundreds of thousands of British Columbians for a discriminatory tactic. The Social Credit idea of fairness is going back in time to that black period in our history in the eighties when we saw this kind of legislation leading to cutbacks, confrontation and chaos in British Columbia.

This is a labour bill brought in by our new Minister of Finance, my colleague for Burnaby-Willingdon, who has been left holding the bag by the former Finance minister. Why was this bill not introduced by the Minister of Labour? It is really a labour bill. That's because we know that the Minister of Labour has some difficulty with this bill because he knows that such legislation is going to cause chaos. It's going to make it more difficult to attract the nurses we need now. We have a nursing shortage in this province, and this kind of legislation makes that profession more unattractive to potential nurses. We expect that there will be a teaching shortage in this province. How is legislation like this going to attract the brightest and best to come to our schools to teach the young? It's not going to do it; it's going to turn those people off.

[5:45]

Perhaps that Labour Minister knows that this bill is not a labour bill; it's a political bill. It's aimed at provoking unrest in terms of labour-management relations. A province constantly changing the labour rules is going to create upset. We don't need upset; we need stability. If we are going to attract investment and if we are going to create investor confidence in this province, we don't need a government that is constantly changing the goalposts.

We know why this legislation was brought in. It's very simple. This is recycled legislation. This is a knee-jerk blast from the past. We remember 1983, because the government was in a very similar position in 1983. They were down in the polls. We remember the scandals: the Pouilly-Fuisse and the Spetifore land deals. We remember that northeast coal became a joke in terms of a business investment in this province. In 1983 those scandals demoralized the government. That's exactly why we have this legislation today. It worked in 1983. We brought on the tough guy image. We showed them. We thought we could knock down the public sector. We showed them we could divide and conquer. We showed that we could make the employees who work on our behalf in the public interest second-class citizens. That worked for the government in 1983. But this is not 1983. This is nothing like 1983.

In 1983, private sector settlements were well behind the public sector for the previous three years. Wage settlements at that time were something around 17 percent. That was unfair legislation even under those circumstances, but it's far more unfair these days.

We know that the legislation at that time damaged the economy and prolonged the recession. At that time we heard from a Prof. Robert Russell, a distinguished economist from New York University and former director of the Council on Wage and Price Stability in the Carter administration. He indicated it was a mistake to single out the public sector workers for wage controls. Also, there's something a little bit

[ Page 11728 ]

ludicrous about a province having its own anti-inflation policy.

That distinguished economist was right. We know that that legislation damaged employee-employer relations and damaged the economy to the degree that in many sectors of this province we have not yet recovered from that period.

A government that was really interested in restraint and was not trying to fool the people wouldn't give 20 percent increases to their political appointees, would not plan to loan millions of dollars to companies in their ridings, would not bring in successive budgets way above the inflation rate, would not have 500,000 square feet of rented office space going empty and would not bring expensive television into the Legislature.

No, this is not restraint legislation; this is legislation geared to try to save the fortunes of a desperate government in the dying days of its mandate, a government that is desperately clinging to power and trying for that one last home run. It is the height of hypocrisy that we see in this bill before us. It is a Social Credit double standard bill. We know that the aim of this bill is to distract attention from the mess that this government is in, has been in for the last four months and continues to be in day after day.

These are difficult economic times. We all recognize that. Employees and employers face difficult challenges. Those challenges are there with an economy that is in decline, with inflation and GST creating difficulties. Both the employer and employee sides have to rise to that challenge and meet those responsibilities. I have faith in those groups that they will do that. What we don't need is this kind of interference in the bargaining process, these divide-and-conquer tactics, this kind of legislation that we know is totally geared to inflame the bargaining climate in this province.

Mr. Speaker, the public will see through this thin veneer, this façade that the government has. They will not be sucked in by this ploy. I urge the government to go to the people. Go soon. Go now. Drop the writ. Call the election. Let the people decide.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I want to give you notice that I am not the designated speaker on this bill — just so you are aware.

The member for Burnaby North began by examining this piece of legislation and asking himself the question, because of its title, Compensation Fairness Act: "If it's called that, if it refers to fairness in the title, then surely that must imply that there is some unfairness out there that it is correcting." And he asked the question: "What is that unfairness?" I think that's exactly the question. The answer to that question is that the unfairness occurs when the public sector is able to spend more than the taxpayers are able to spend. That is the unfairness. It is unfair when the public sector is able to spend more than the taxpayers consent to be spent. That's exactly the point of this bill, and that is the answer to the question posed by the member for Burnaby North.

He went on to say that, in his view, a 17 percent wage increase was not unfair. It probably wasn't unfair in 1983, or it wouldn't be today, to the person receiving that 17 percent increase. But it is unfair to the people who have to pay it, particularly when the people who have to pay it are not getting the same kind of lifts in their own compensation. That is the answer to the question the member raised.

The member for Burnaby North also said that it was ludicrous for a province to try to take steps to impact the rate of inflation within its own borders, I tell you, Mr. Member for Burnaby North, you should have some words tonight with the second member for Vancouver East on that point, because I suspect he wouldn't agree with you. It's not ludicrous for this province or for any province to try to take steps within the measures that it can, within its own jurisdiction, or to try to have an impact on the rate of inflation within its own boundaries. They must do that.

Not only isn't it ludicrous, Mr. Member, it is essential and, I say to you, a responsibility of any government to try to do that. It is clearly a responsibility to try to have an impact on inflation. Mr. Member, when you take the view, as you do, that a 17 percent rate of increase would be all right or would not be unfair, as you said — that you shouldn't try to impact on inflation inside your boundaries — then what you are doing is leading inexorably to the position where you are going to spend more than the taxpayers can send you by a significant amount. Therefore, in order to pay for it, you are going to have to borrow.

The problem with borrowing so much money when you are unprepared to take steps to control your expenditures is that it's a generational thing. What that means in simple terms — and as a teacher, I'm sure you'd appreciate that; I know your students would appreciate it — is that the generation that overspends, the generation that goes out and spends more than it is prepared to take in, the generation that spends more than it can afford, is living beyond its means, is living high off the back of the hog, is enjoying more spending than it's prepared to earn. But implicitly what that means is that they are passing on the cost of their overspending to their children and their children's children. That, very simply, sir, is unfair.

As we are getting close to the hour, Mr. Speaker, I know there is a new day in here where we're all being very careful about our decorum in front of the camera, save and except the opposition House Leader — and I credit him with not taking care in front of the camera; he was his old self today. But you know, it is the case that there's so much pancake makeup on all the exposed skin that is sticking out around here that I think the best economic advice that I can give people today is to buy shares in Elizabeth Arden.

Just before we move along, I want to say that we perhaps should adjourn a couple of minutes early today, because I know that there are a number of members on the opposite side of the House who are

[ Page 11729 ]

going to have to get their new suits back before 6 o'clock.

With that, I would like to move this debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.