[ Page 11731 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Reports –– 11731

Tabling Documents –– 11731

Compensation Fairness Act (Bill 82). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 11731

Ms. Pullinger –– 11734

Mr. Brummet –– 11735

Mr. Sihota –– 11738

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 11740

Ms. Smallwood –– 11742

Mr. Loenen –– 11743

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER: Pursuant to section 7 of the Provincial Court Act, I have the honour to present the report of the compensation advisory committee, 1990.

By leave I wish to make the following motion.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. FRASER: I move that the report and recommendations of the compensation advisory committee, 1990, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations for the purpose of recommending a resolution to the Legislative Assembly for the fixing of salaries pursuant to section 7 and section 2 of the Provincial Court Act.

Motion approved.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the annual report of the Assessment Appeal Board for the 1990 calendar year.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 82.

COMPENSATION FAIRNESS ACT

(continued)

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I want to carry on where I left off last evening because I thought the discussion we were having yesterday was a very useful one, inasmuch as the points of view that were being expressed in the House — very neatly I thought — distinguished our view on this issue from that of the New Democratic Party.

I thought particularly important to making that distinction was the contribution made by the member for Burnaby North because, as you recall, in debate yesterday he focused on the title of the Compensation Fairness Act — the bill before us — and made the point that the word "fairness" presumably presupposes that there may be or could be some unfairness. He asked, therefore —   perhaps rhetorically — what unfairness could possibly take place if this piece of legislation was not included in the package that we are introducing and will be introducing over the next days in terms of our position on protecting taxpayers.

I think that that is a fair and succinct description of the issue that is before us and will be before the taxpayers of British Columbia during the next months. Obviously the whole question of fairness must underpin any economic plan to protect taxpayers that comes into play.

There are a number of elements to that. There must be fairness with respect to expenditures; there must be fairness with respect to taxpayers. And when you deal with fairness with respect to taxpayers, you have to provide a framework within which that fairness can be seen to operate and within which the elements themselves, who are going to be affected by the legislation, have fairness.

Mr. Speaker, I think the legislation does that, because what is most unfair to taxpayers is spending beyond our means as public sector governments when we have before us information telling us we are spending beyond our means, and also when we have before us, as we do in the British Columbia Legislature, a mechanism by which we can put some constraints on that expenditure.

This is not novel to this Legislature. We have debated and dealt with these issues in the past, and we have done so successfully. It would be a real tragedy, it seems to me, if we were to avoid our own historical experience — as recent as it is, of only six, seven or eight years — and deny the validity of that experience and somehow carry on without taking steps to do what we can to be fair to taxpayers and to control our expenditures. If we continue to spend beyond our means, the unfairness is that we are committing taxpayers to deficit financing. We're doing what the second member for Vancouver East said on a television show recently, "playing around with taxes." Well, I think that cavalier attitude about the discipline that is necessary in financing public expenditures is something that the public should be alive and alert to.

You don't play around with taxes, and you therefore don't play around with deficits. You don't play around with expenditures. When you do that, Mr. Speaker, you impose upon people, as has happened in Manitoba as a result of the profligate overspending and playing around with a system that was undertaken by the NDP a few years ago — and which the current government in Manitoba is trying desperately to correct.

When they started to play around with people's taxes and play around with the system in Manitoba, instead of dealing with the issue squarely, they introduced the notion of separating their capital expenditures from their operating budget. All they did over time, in terms of their operating budget, was simply show on the operating side a line item indicating the amount of debt-servicing that was going to pay for their capital expenditures. This allowed them to actually increase their operating budget to show that they were funding new programs and to take credit for funding new programs.

The NDP in Manitoba at that time were tricking the taxpayers into thinking they were paying as they went, and they weren't. They were playing around with taxes, as the second member for Vancouver East so well expresses the policy of the NDP. They were playing around with taxes so much so that they did not introduce the discipline that is necessary to keep your expenditures under control. They kept putting off their capital expenditures into an out-of-sight, out-of-mind budgetary allocation. They kept increasing their operating budget so much that the Finance

[ Page 11732 ]

minister for Manitoba, just a month and a half ago, drew everyone together on both sides of their House to tell them what desperate financial condition they are in and that if debt-servicing were a department of government in that province, it today would be the third-largest department in the entire government. That's the position they've gotten to by playing around with taxes as the NDP member for Vancouver East recommends we do in this Legislature.

So I'm glad the member for Burnaby North raised the issue of fairness, because it goes to the root of the matter. The ultimate unfairness is to over spend and push deficits off. What is so desperately unfair about that is that the generation that gets to live high off the back of the hog, gets to spend beyond its means and enjoy in that kind of yuppified way that people do today, the sort of selfish me-tooism.... They get to enjoy all that, and they also get to push off the burden to their children and to their children's children. Nothing can be more unfair than that.

[10:15]

It seems to me that what we have to do to ensure that that doesn't happen is not to do as the member for Burnaby North suggested. He said yesterday that a 17 percent wage increase back in '83 wouldn't have been unfair. Of course it would have been unfair. Not only would it be unfair, it would be crazy. A 17 percent wage increase, coming out of the mouth of the member for Burnaby North as somehow not being unfair, does in fact put very clearly the need and the reason for this kind of legislation. When you have a member standing in this House with a straight face seriously articulating the notion that 17 percent wage increases aren't unfair to taxpayers, and articulating the notion, as he did yesterday, that the provincial government should not try to control inflation, then I have to tell you that there can be nothing more unfair than that kind of philosophy.

Let's just take a look at what a 17 percent wage increase would do today. Compensation represents an expenditure of $8.3 billion in British Columbia today. A 1 percent hit on that, obviously, is $83 million more. Seventeen percent, which would be 12 to 13 percent over the anticipated guideline amount, would represent an additional sum of $1 billion. That out of the mouth of the member for Burnaby North just yesterday — in the face of the knowledge of the problems that we have with our economy and with our revenue side. So you see, if you have an attitude like that that leaps up in the House and says that those kinds of expenditure lifts in compensation would not be unfair, then. I think the question of fairness and whose fairness goes to the heart of the issue.

The New Democratic Party, the NDP member for Vancouver East particularly, keeps referring, I might add, to one of my staff members in terms of what he calls a wage increase. I want the record to show that when he says this, the comment being made is false, and I want it to be known clearly on the floor. The reason I want it to be known is that there was not, in fact, a wage increase; there was an error on my part. When his order was put through it was for a category called an EA. It should have been put forward as an MA category, and as soon as I found out the error I corrected it. If anyone continues to advance that thesis in this House, Mr. Speaker, you will know they are deliberately misleading the House, since the facts now are known to them.

This whole process that we're in with respect to fairness is one that I think the NDP will have a greater opportunity to talk about as time goes along. There are a number of elements to it. The fairness of expenditures which we are dealing with now, the fairness of the taxation that people are going to be burdened with, which they'll get to deal with in a few days, and the fairness of the level of deficit that the taxpayer should have to endure, if any, are elements that I think the taxpayers might want to and could have the opportunity to answer directly.

This could be something that is put to the taxpayers through a process that would allow them to offer their opinions directly on the level of expenditure and the borrowing, if any, which might take place. What could be fairer than that?

To get, if I may, to the plan which is before us I think there are some elements within the plan itself that should be addressed in the context of this notion of fairness. First of all, government has no money of its own. It only has the taxpayers' money. It might seem trite and redundant to have to repeat that in the British Columbia Legislative Assembly — and two days ago I would have argued that position — but having listened yesterday to the member for Burnaby North argue that 17 percent was somehow fair, I have to say that we should argue that position again and restate it. Government has no money of its own; the only money that government has is the money which taxpayers send to it. Therefore the taxpayers' ability to provide government with money must be the basis for expenditure levels that government undertakes to provide. Hence the public sector cannot lead the private sector in compensation provisions. It's as simple as that. You can't have the person receiving the taxes leading the person who's providing the taxes. I would have thought that even the NDP could understand this proposition, but I was surprised, on listening yesterday, that they don't.

The other element is that government compensation is typically year-round compensation. Private sector compensation for workers in the IWA, the construction industry and elsewhere quite often is not; quite often it is seasonal. So you shouldn't make those direct comparisons, as was done yesterday, between the public and the private sectors, because they don't make sense.

The sale of products, productivity and markets control private sector wage rates. You don't have that kind of natural sales regime, that kind of natural productivity and those kinds of natural markets within the public sector. The compensation fairness program creates a marketplace within the public sector.

How does it do that? First of all, and most importantly, it establishes clearly that the taxpayer's ability to pay is going to be the route upon which

[ Page 11733 ]

expenditure levels are controlled. That is the most fundamental way in which it establishes a marketplace within the public sector, because it ties public sector compensation — and therefore public sector expenditure rates — to the private sector's ability to pay. This means very simply that the private sector's ability to pay, which is controlled by markets themselves, flows through to the public sector. Hence it creates market conditions in the public sector so that as the economy turns down, so does the taxpayer's ability to pay and therefore so does the public sector's ability to spend. Accordingly, that market discipline flows through to the public sector.

Like the private sector, this program is flexible. There are a number of ways in which that can be done. It's not a cookie-cutter system of bargaining, as was suggested here. It's not that kind of simpleminded system at all.

Within the bargaining program that will take place, there are options for job security. There are options within the system for comparison to the private sector. In certain necessary skills areas, there are private sector comparisons available. As well, during the bargaining process there are options within the system to take care of, look after and take account of skill shortages which may occur from time to time, of gender-based programs that have been set up to impact upon compensation levels, and of historical bargaining relationships, both within the public sector and between the public and private sectors.

As I say, it is not a cookie-cutter philosophy; it is not as was described here yesterday at all. It is a system that imports into the public sector, through a rational process, the market economy that we all ultimately have to live by. It is a process that allows for the bargaining flexibility required in a system of collective bargaining in British Columbia. There is nothing inconsistent about those notions whatsoever, and I hope the opposition, when they think about it, will embrace them.

This program also recognizes that we have more than 700 different employers and employer groups within the public sector. Each has its own tax base and therefore its own ability to pay. It's the natural and logical consequence of that fact. Seven hundred different groups — it's not a cookie-cutter system. And each one of those 700 different groups will be able to bring to the bargaining table its own fact base, its own ability to pay, its own comparison with other sectors, its own needs with respect to skill shortages, and all the other elements required to reach a collective agreement.

The fairness of bargaining will in fact continue under this program. If those who are skeptical about that will only reflect on the system in place a mere six or seven years ago, when that kind of bargaining did take place, they will see that it took place fairly and that it resulted in agreements. I want to remind the House, because there was a suggestion made here yesterday that this was all a great plot to pick a fight with someone and get them to do something, to go out and be hard-nosed and so on it's silliness to postulate that notion when all you have to do is reflect on what happened last time when this took place.

During that last time, during CSP, no one, not a single group in British Columbia, not a single employee or a single one of the 700 employer or employer groups, was forced under the mandatory regulations to enter into any agreement that they didn't come to through the normal collective bargaining process. And that was done at a time when this kind of legislation and these principles were new, particularly leading up to the 1983 election, when the NDP tried to use that legislation to incite disunity, discord and disruption in our communities, when they went around this province and tried to incite people to lay down their tools and march in the streets, and quite frankly, tried to incite civil disobedience in the land. During that time there wasn't a single, solitary instance. They had gone out and said everyone was going to be forced to do this, that and the other thing — and not a single person was forced last time. Real bargaining took place. The program was successful, agreements were made, collective agreements were entered into voluntarily, with this program bringing the logic and discipline of the marketplace to the public sector.

Bargaining will take place, agreements will be entered into voluntarily, no one will be forced to do anything they don't want to do. And the result of all that will be a fair tax system in British Columbia, because the taxpayer's ability to pay will be taken into account in all decisions taken by government at all levels in this province when expenditure questions are raised and determinations about how we're going to put out public money have to made.

In this province, in this country, there may be five levels of government, but there is only one level of taxpayer. And all levels of government have to treat that taxpayer fairly. This legislation will do it. Bills that will be coming in in due time will also get an opportunity to do it. And the whole package will result in a sound, sensible taxpayer protection plan which the people of this province will ultimately have an opportunity to determine whether they want or not, both through a vote by the members who sit in this House and a vote directly for elements of the plan itself.

[10:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Prior to recognizing the next speaker, might I again remind members that it is improper for them to make any action, to applaud, assist or heckle the speaker in any way, unless they are sitting in their appropriate seats. I don't wish to embarrass members during the speeches of members, but I've noticed a migratory pattern developing since the advent of television. Those members who migrate to vacant seats for whatever reason will be identified by the Speaker and asked to move, if they insist on applauding or assisting the speaker in any way.

[ Page 11734 ]

MS. PULLINGER: I too rise to speak against Bill 82, which we on this side note is very misleadingly entitled Compensation Fairness Act. It's clear to me and to all of us on this side of the House, especially after listening to comments from the other side of the House, that this bill has absolutely nothing to do with fairness. This bill is about a Social Credit search for an election issue. It's not about fairness; there's nothing about fairness in this bill.

What this bill does, however, is once again show people the double standards of Social Credit, it's a clear exemplification of the double standards of those people opposite, who have one set of rules for friends and insiders and another set of rules for the people of B.C.

For instance, we see that this government is willing to increase salaries for its own political aides by up to 20 percent right before it brings in wage controls for the public sector. It's willing to give a $25 million, 100-percent-taxpayer-paid pension plan to the doctors. Nurses get wage controls. There are apparently unlimited funds for political ads. We hear from this government about taxpayer fairness and how it wants to protect taxpayers. Yet since 1986, this government has increased the tax burden for the average household by about $3,000 a year. We're hearing double standards from these people.

The hard-working public servants in this province are about to be used as fodder for the Social Credit re-election plan. It seems to me that's unfair. It seems to me that's another example of Social Credit's double standards. This bill is not about fairness. It's clearly politically motivated.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Let's just have a look at the basic premise of this bill: public sector wage controls are out of line, and there's a great disparity. That's simply not true. Public sector and private sector wages are not all that different. The most convincing figures to show that are the government's own figures through the Industrial Relations Council. As well, the Business Council of B.C. shows that there is a less than 1 percent difference. So this bill is absolutely unnecessary. The fundamental premise on which it's based simply doesn't hold water.

It's a heavy-handed bill. One of the most telling facts is that the government's own Minister of Labour has clearly pointed out that it's unnecessary, that it will simply provoke confrontation and that it will interfere with the free collective and democratic bargaining process. It's a bad bill. It seems to me it's simply a continuation of the anti-labour legislation that has become the hallmark of this government.

I want to speak very briefly about the effects this bill will have. First, I want to talk about the effects it will have on the regions of British Columbia. It seems clear to me that not only will this bill hurt a number of individuals, but it's going to hurt the small communities around British Columbia, particularly those outside the lower mainland,

It was interesting, when I opened my paper this morning, to read that an official of the Ministry of Finance is saying precisely the same thing. He said in the Times-Colonist this morning: "Proposed controls for public sector wages, salaries and benefits could create pay disparities across the province." There's a lot of evidence to show that that will in fact be the case. What we have, of course, are different communities with different tax bases and therefore a different ability to pay, which is the guiding principle of this bill.

What we're going to see is that the small communities in this province — the regions, the north, the interior, North Island and all of those places — are going to have more trouble than they already have in attracting key professionals and specialists like audiologists, special care workers in the social services, and special health care workers. They're going to have trouble attracting those people to their communities, and those communities that are already disadvantaged in this way are going to be worse off.

What we end up with, then, is a two-tiered system where we have one set of social services for the regions and one set of services for the lower mainland and the more densely populated and more attractive areas — in the sense of being able to attract people to work there. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about fairness. It's going to have quite the opposite effect for the regions of B.C.

The other thing I'd like to point out is that this bill, although it's going to be obviously unfair to some individuals and to some regions, is also going to be unfair to women. We've heard a lot of rhetoric about women's economic equality from the other side during the present session which started last year. We've heard a lot of talk, but let's have a look at the facts. Let's look at what's actually happened.

First of all, I recently read a study put out just last month by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, and that report concluded that women in this country are worse off than they have been. They're losing ground. The lives of Canadian women are getting more difficult. Women are getting poorer, and women's working conditions are getting worse. That report also laid the blame for the deterioration in women's economic condition directly at the feet of right-wing government policies.

Women are losing ground in Canada. They're losing ground generally across this country, but in B.C. that situation is worse. Where women across the country are earning 66 cents to the male dollar, women in British Columbia are earning 61.8 cents on the male dollar, and the gap is widening. Women are losing ground in B.C.

Bill 82 is going to hit women disproportionately hard. It's going to cap, freeze, roll back or even force paying back workers' wages. It's clearly designed — and members on the government side have made this very clear in their comments — to lower public sector wages. The last bill, Bill 79, wasn't heavy-handed enough for this government, so they have brought in this bill which is Draconian and clearly designed to lower public sector wages.

[ Page 11735 ]

Let's have a look at who the public sector workers are. There are approximately 300,000 public sector workers, and the vast majority of them are women. This government, in its search for an election issue, is clearly willing to use those women and men as fodder and as an issue for their own bid for power. I think that's unacceptable.

The Minister Responsible for Women's Programs argued yesterday that this bill would somehow help women, that it would make women's conditions better. I frankly fail to see how that's possible. She also pointed out, in trying to sell this bad bill, that pay equity programs were exempt — as we heard from several other members — but that is not stated anywhere in the legislation. No where in the legislation doer, it say that pay equity is exempt.

As well, I think it's important to note that while over half the 300,000 workers this affects are women and subject to wage controls, wage freezes and rollbacks, the women who are affected by pay equity are something like 13,000 in number. Nurses, for instance, are excluded from pay equity but they are included for wage controls.

Government's record of real action for women in this province is abysmal. We've seen a very narrow, limited pay equity program, three studies, three medals, one logo contest and now we've seen wage controls. This bill has nothing to do with fairness. It has nothing to do with improving women's conditions or improving labour relations. Quite the contrary, as the Minister of Labour and people in the Ministry of Finance have pointed out; it is simply another example of government's double standards, doubletalk and unfairness. It's going to provoke confrontation and interfere with the free collective bargaining process.

This bill will hit women hardest, and it's going to hit regions first. I believe that what this bill will do, above all, is reinforce the growing conviction among British Columbians that it's time for a change in British Columbia.

MR. BRUMMET: I think I can safely say that this bill is here before the House because it is needed, and some of my remarks will point that out.

It's rather interesting that, despite the explanation about the increase for one EA — that it was a categorization restructuring, not a wage increase — each one of the members on that side repeats it in hopes that fewer people will have heard the explanation. If enough people on the other side say it, that is the message that will get out.

They talk about the doctors' pensions, using that as an example. Yes, $25 million and the way it's done may raise some questions. But I think the public should also be reminded that during the negotiations with the doctors, the socialists over there repeatedly said: "Support us and we'll get, you higher fee increases." The Minister of Health has clearly pointed out that even a small percentage greater fee increase would amount to a far greater bill to the taxpayers of this province than that pension. If that was able, in one way or another — formally or informally — to keep down the fee increases, which compound from year to year, and was able to reach a settlement, then I think it was well done.

The member for Nanaimo said this bill does nothing about fairness and nothing to help women. If women are on average lower paid than men — and that's generally accepted — then why do the socialists continually support the standard union position of percentage increases across the board? Anyone can do the arithmetic to show that 6 percent of $30,000 is a lower increase than 6 percent of $50,000. If you keep applying that principle, the spread between the two has to grow. Yet that across-the-board percentage increase is continually supported by the socialists.

The NDP has now clearly outlined its position. They have clearly come out against restraint in public sector spending and against comparative increases in public sector wages. The member for Nanaimo said that this legislation will lower the public sector wages. I suppose they use this in various ways to try to get across the message that this is a cutback. It is not a cutback; it will not lower public sector wages. What it will do is bring the increases in public sector wages in line with the private sector and the economy.

One member after another on the other side says that this is being devised and used strictly as an election issue. I wonder why they are so concerned about this being an election issue. It is my contention that they are very concerned. They don't want to go to the people of this province with the same position that they repeatedly espouse in this House on behalf of their friends in the vested-interest groups. They say to the groups: "We'll give you greater increases. We'll give you more money. We'll do more than these guys. We will not make cutbacks." Yet they don't want to go to the public with the position of being against restraint.

It's rather interesting that some of the members on that side — one of the members particularly, and I think someone else reiterated it — said that it worked before, so we should never do it again. Yes, it worked during the tough times of the early eighties, and spending was brought under control by the measures that the government took at that time. At that time they took the position that they would remove any restraint measures if they became government. We took the position that restraint was necessary for the long-term economic benefit of everyone in this province, and I believe we won by a higher majority. So the people out there know that.

I don't think there's any question that we would all prefer free collective bargaining. I think this government has given plenty of evidence that they would like free collective bargaining to work. They have given every opportunity for people to do that. But free collective bargaining in the private sector works a little bit differently than it does in the public sector. Free collective bargaining in the private sector has all parties at the table, and the public is one of those parties. The public can determine very easily whether they continue to purchase if the prices go up too high. So the public is at that table. They can

[ Page 11736 ]

support an industry, a company or a business, or they cart take down that business by deciding whether they buy from it and use its services.

[10:45]

I would contend that this legislation is necessary because the public is not one of the parties at the table. As a matter of fact, the elected representatives are not supposed to be representing just a union, the teachers or a group; they are supposed to be representing the taxpayers of this province. School boards, municipal councils and elected provincial representatives are all supposed to be representing that public and bringing that public to the table through that representation, when that public doesn't have a say. That public generally will support increases in line with what the economy is doing, but they cannot support increases well beyond what the economy is doing.

Probably a graphic example of that is the teachers' situation — the situation in education. The teachers were asked during the recession of the mid-eighties to make some of the sacrifices that the people who were paying their wages were making — in other words, the other people — the taxpayers out there in the public. Yes, the teachers are taxpayers too, but there's a much wider public that pays taxes in this province. The teachers and all others were asked to do that by government direction, by the leadership of this Social Credit government. When times improved, they benefited from that as well. When the wage increased, the increased spending on education since 1986.... When times started to pick up, probably because of the optimism created by the election of a free enterprise government and the opportunity for businesses to prosper, and therefore to pay more taxes and hire more employees — that's on record — and those people paid more income tax and more sales tax and more taxes of all kinds So those people can pay more taxes when they are working and when they have the money to do so, and they did benefit from that.

Now let's contrast that with what has happened. I'm proud of what I was able to do and what the government of this province supported: that is, to try to bring spending on education in line with what the economy is doing. The Sullivan royal commission said that education funding, to ensure continuity in education, should be based on a rational system, should provide stability and should be in line with the economy. We took that advice very seriously. It happens to coincide with my own view that when people are 6 percent richer they don't mind paying 6 percent more in taxes. But if they are 5 percent poorer, they hate to pay 20 percent more in taxes. The point has been made often enough that the government gets money from taxes.

So what did we do? We tried to put in a stable, reliable, rational system in education funding. We took a look at what the economy was doing, at the wage increases that were happening in the public and private sectors. We did not eliminate the public sector, even though it was leading a little bit by that time. We took the average of that, and we took the consumer price index and said: "That works out to 6.17 percent. Therefore this government will assure that the boards will have 6.17 percent more to spend in this year's budget, the 1990-91 year" — assured, in line with the economy.

We said at the time that the next year's, increase would be determined by an economic indicator which would be on the same scale. In other words, the economic factors out there would determine what the increase would be. It would be in line with the economy so that taxpayers could know they were facing increases only in line with the economy.

Besides the 6.17 percent, we also announced a major capital program. We also announced 3.6 percent as our estimate for enrolment increases. So in other words, it was actually 9.9 percent on the operating budgets out there, depending on enrolment increases.

Someone could quite quickly say: "We didn't get 9.9 percent." Of course not. If their enrolment went down, they would not get the 3.6 percent increase for enrolment increases; that was an average across the province. Some people pointed out: "But we did not get 6 percent to provide salary increases." That is true. Some of the districts might have gotten 5 percent. But they had a younger teaching force at lower salaries, so their salary budget went down by 1 percent. So to give them 6 percent you only had to add 5 percent. Subtract 1 and add 5, and you still come out with 6. So there was 6 percent for every school district.

The member for Nanaimo quoted this morning again from socialist research from the newspaper that some unnamed Ministry of Finance official said that this would create wage disparities. She used the example that one school district would have the ability to pay a different scale than another, when I have just made it very clear that each school district got enough to top up salaries by 6 percent.

Now what happened in the system? The BCTF told the teachers: "They may say that's rational; they may say it's logical. But forget it. This system works on pressure." Everyone will agree that education is important — everyone on both sides of the House. Everyone will agree that education is critical in many respects. Therefore it is very important, and it becomes in effect a motherhood issue out there in the public. So they know that pressure will help and they have applied that pressure. Disregard the fact that the economy is growing at about 5.5 percent and going downhill. Disregard that we'll go for seven point-some percent in wages over two years. Not knowing what the economy will do next year, we want 7 percent anyway. The economy might fall flat, but we are going to build in a 7 percent increase because nobody is going to take education away from their kids. It's a tough one to fight against.

But I point out that what we tried to do is assure the continuity of quality education and stable education funding in this province. In other words, I guess we were trying to protect them against themselves. If you use pressure tactics to get away with going far

[ Page 11737 ]

beyond what is available, there obviously comes a day of reckoning.

I'll tell you I would far rather go to the people, go to anyone — and still look in the mirror — with the concept of restraint and spending in line with the income and the economy than to have a crash down the line. That's what we were trying to prevent: the boom-and-bust cycles. We were trying to rationalize it, and I think it has the potential to work. But it does not have the potential to work when people say: "Forget it. Pressure."

Then the socialists on the other side say: "We've got a good chance of getting elected. You vote for us, and we'll guarantee you more than they are giving you."

When we added up the operating increases, the enrolment increases, the contribution to capital — that's just the mortgage payments, not the total bill — and our commitment to the implementation of the Year 2000 program, which is worth about $140 million, the public school education system in this province got 15 percent more in government funding than the year before, and the government assured that funding.

We said that if they wanted more than that.... If you do in fact make the point that the people will support you, then ask the people by referendum. Nine districts decided to do that. Only two of them won, and got themselves in a bind. I cautioned them at that time; if you go to referendum to spend beyond what the funding increases are, you are going to get yourself in a bind because next year you are going to be behind and you are going to have to go to the people for twice as much just to maintain the program, let alone any other improvements you want.

There is a lot of talk about people supporting increased funding for education. There is an easy way for any school district to find out. Ask the people. That's what we said. But we did not say to them: "Ask the people to pay taxes to provide a quality education system." We said: "We guarantee that. Ask the people if you want to spend more than is needed to continue to provide that quality education system."

[11:00]

So what do we have now? We've talked about the newspapers. We've seen a number of ads from the teachers' associations during negotiations. Every one of those ads mentions that class size is wonderful and lower classes are wonderful. Why are these people trying to keep us away from providing better education to the students by lowering class size? Not one of those ads mentions that the teachers' concern for class size only kicks in after they get 2 percent more in wage increases than the economy. In other words, after we get our 7 percent, then we become very concerned about class size. That's the only issue we want to go to the people with: we want smaller classes. It's a good issue to go with. I think somehow or other school boards have been remiss in not pointing out that if the teachers took a 5 percent increase instead of 6 percent, that other 1 percent — if they're so concerned about class size — would provide all the money they needed to reduce classes. One percent in teachers' wage increases is a lot of money.

They're going for the 7 percent, and they're also going for the class size. Mr. Speaker, there are over 500,000 pupils in this province. The average class size — and of course the people should have the autonomy at the local level to arrange them into groups that are most teachable.... I've been there, and it's always worked. If you divide that 500,000 by the average class size of 23, and then divide it by a reduction of one — an average class of 22 — that requires over 1,000 more teachers in the province.

Let's take the starting salary, that everyone of those teachers is a beginner: $35,000 a year. That's $35 million to reduce the average class size from 23 to 22. Tell me, what does it really do educationally? I've asked a lot of teachers that. How much better can you teach 22 pupils than you can teach 23? Nobody can answer me on that one, yet it costs $35 million. Plus, Mr. Speaker, if you allow only $35,000 for each portable classroom — and we're trying to get away from those — that's another $35 million for those extra classes. So it costs $70 million to reduce class size by one, from 23 to 22, which does virtually nothing educationally. My contention is that that $70 million would do a lot more for education spent in different ways.

If you look at class size, that's over 4 percent — if the class size works. I'm taking just rough numbers: 25 to 1. One change out of 25 works out to four out of 100, or 4 percent. So you've got 7 percent wage increase, 4 percent for class size, and there are only 25 teaching hours in the week; and if one of those hours is set aside for preparation, that's another 4 percent; so now we have 7 plus 4 plus 4. To me that works out to pretty close to 15 percent — maybe not quite 15 percent on the whole budget, but certainly 15 percent on teachers' salaries, which is two-thirds of the budget — but two-thirds of that education budget is $2 billion, and 15 percent of that is quite a few bucks for what it accomplishes.

A rational system was put in place with the assurance that extra funds above that budget increase would be provided for the implementation of the royal commission recommendations of the Year 2000 program. But the rational system was dismissed by a union bent on power and authority and control and removing autonomy from its members.

They talk about autonomy for its members, but let any teacher say, "I want to work with my kids at recess," and they are told: "Knock it off! We're negotiating against that." Let any two or three teachers say, "Well, we might have 75 kids among the three of us, and we think that for, some lessons we could have ten to work with specially and somebody else could show a film to 40, " or something of that nature.... That autonomy is being taken away from the teachers.

I guess the most glaring example.... They talk about solidarity. It's a little bit enforced solidarity. At their last annual general meeting they were able to pass an addition to their code of ethics which says

[ Page 11738 ]

that any teacher who speaks out publicly against the official BCTF position can be disciplined and kicked out of teaching in British Columbia. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, they say: "We are a democratic organization."

I know that part of the difficulty is that numbers are so big, We talk about billions and millions and hundreds of millions — it's difficult for people to understand. The average teacher's salary in this province is over $50,000 with benefits. That's the average. A 7 percent increase works out to $3,500 per year, so it's over $350 per month plus, if those teachers are not yet at maximum plus the increment, and if they are adding to their certificate plus that.... That's built in already. I don't argue with that: it's there. But it's a $350 per month increase, and they are basically saying: "If we get that first, then we will fight for smaller classes. If I get $350 a month more in an economy where people are hurting, then I will teach better, I will care more about kids, and I will do that." I have some difficulty with that.

I guess the difficulty is that teachers basically are threatened with dismissal from teaching in British Columbia if they speak out against the BCTF position. So not that many turn out at the meetings. And when they do, how can they possibly speak against it? Yet I know — and I have said it many times — let that teacher go into the classroom as a professional, give that teacher the autonomy that Year 2000 asks to give them professional judgment and autonomy of the teacher in the classroom; and they are professional people in that classroom, they work hard and try to do their very best for the children.... But their union says you can only do your very best if you get a $350-a-month increase this year.

The member for Burnaby North yesterday said: "How can we attract teachers into the profession with this kind of legislation?" I would suggest that by starting teachers at $35,000 a year and quickly moving them up to over $50,000, we can be selective about who we let into the profession, let alone attract people in. We've done everything to create more spaces.

I have dwelt on that one example because I think it’s a graphic example of what's happening out there. It's a graphic example of what happened in Ontario. The Minister of Education there got the support of the teaching profession in Ontario in the election campaign, and now the Canadian Council of Ministers of Education cannot make a decision without going back and asking the teachers first. They owe a debt, and those teachers there are going to collect. I think it's sad when the Minister comes to those meetings and says; "I cannot give you an answer until I check with the teachers in the province."

I'm not talking about lack of consultation. There's a lot of consultation; there are a lot of teachers that have been involved in all of the activities we've been doing. But I'm talking about a Minister of Education.... Mind you, I feel a bit sorry for her. They did promise a great deal in the election campaign to get their support. Now their leader is having to start to back off and say. "Well, you have to be patient for this. It ain't that easy." I guess it isn't that easy.

This legislation is fair. It's trying to bring fairness into the picture. It's trying to bring the opportunity... That commissioner has the flexibility to decide on equity issues, has the ability to do that for special circumstances.

I guess if I say one more thing about the teaching thing, it's that I'm so proud of having tried, with the government's support, to make a rational system here. I'm so disappointed at the reaction we've had. I'm also very worried that when the BCTF were given a choice between an increase of $3,500 per year and one of $300 per month and more to the students, they said: "We'll take the $3,500, We will then allow the school board to cut programs, because we can always blame the government for cutbacks." We've got a whole bunch in the House who keep talking about cutbacks. I don't think the public of this province will ever believe that a 15 percent increase in public school funding is a cutback in educational funding or an indication we don't care about education. We care very much. I'll tell you, we should have it for the long term.

This bill deals with Social Credit philosophy and policy: less debt equals less debt payments, which results in, from the same taxpayers' money, more services to the people, more for education, more for health, more for welfare programs. That is a fact. Less debt means less debt payments, which means more of the same money to be spent.

We only have to look at the federal example. Forty cents out of every dollar you pay in taxes now goes to interest. What if that money were available to provide programs? There would be plenty of money for programs. I know when we put in the restraint program as a government in 1982, it was because we didn't want to get on the horns of that same dilemma. We did not want to get millions of dollars into debt.

It's a fact. It makes sense. It's Social Credit policy. It's Social Credit practice. It's what the people of this province will support in an election.

MR. SIHOTA: At the outset, I want to deal with the double standard which is inherent in the so-called restraint legislation this government has brought before the House. On the one hand, we have a government that says it has no money; on the other hand, we have a government that gives $10,000 and $20,000 raises — 59 percent over three years — to its ministerial assistants. This is a government that on the one hand says it has no money but on the other hand can afford to give a quarter of a million dollars in pension payments and severance payments to an individual like David Poole — forever. This is a government that on the one hand says it has no money but on the other hand can spend $50 million a year on nightly TV advertising, promoting its programs.

This is a government that has spent $25 million as a pension giveaway to doctors — annually. I know that disturbs the Premier. I'm sure that's why he's now leaving the House. He doesn't want to hear the details of the waste of money on the part of this

[ Page 11739 ]

administration. On the one hand it says it has no money, and on the other hand it wastes $8 million on a decentralization program that never worked. Before the Premier leaves, let me say also that this is a government which on the one hand says it doesn't have any money but on the other hand can spend $7 million to buy a new jet for the Premier so he can travel around the province.

The issue here is that the spending priorities of this government are out of touch with the spending priorities of British Columbians. British Columbians see the double standard: on the one hand this restraint legislation and on the other hand the wasteful spending practices of this administration.

As the Labour critic of this party, I also want to point out that it's not just that this government is out of touch and that its spending priorities are out of touch; this is also a government that won't listen. A prime example of an area where the government won't listen is in the area of labour-management relations in this province. Time and time again this government has been told to leave the free collective bargaining system alone, to allow employers and employees to sit down privately and negotiate among themselves and enter into legally binding contracts. Time and time again this government has been told to stay out of that process, to not intrude upon the economic affairs of British Columbians, to allow them to resolve their differences appropriately under the free collective bargaining system — a system that has worked well and served this province well over the years. Yet this government won't listen. It will intrude upon the collective bargaining process.

We saw that happen with respect to Bill 19, for example, incredibly intrusive interventionist legislation introduced by this administration. On the one hand, it was introducing it. on the other hand, it would not listen to those who said that the legislation couldn't work. I see in the House today the former Minister of Labour, for example, who pointed out at the time that if Bill 19 did not have the support of those it sought to govern, it could not work. His words are true today. The government ought to have listened to its then Minister of Labour. Mr. Peck, who administers the act, says that the act doesn't work. The management group — most recently represented by HLRA — came out and said that the legislation doesn't work; it needs changes. And thirdly, labour, of course touched by the legislation, has, through its boycott, successfully pointed out that the legislation doesn't work.

[11:15]

Time and time again this government has been told to stay out of the labour-management relations field; time and time again it intervenes and won't listen to its advisers. It never listened to the member for Dewdney, when he was the Minister of Labour and opposed the provisions of the public disclosure act. Now we see the government admitting the legislation isn't working and finally confessing it will withdraw it.

Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, we also see it in the case of this legislation. The Social Credit Minister of Labour today has himself said that this legislation won't work, that it will hinder the free collective bargaining system and disrupt positive relationships between the employer community and employees. Again this government has chosen not to listen to its own adviser, its own Minister of Labour, who says that this legislation can't work.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

A lot has been said in this debate about the taxpayers' ability to pay. To my way of thinking, it is absolutely essential that the taxpayers' ability to pay be a central ingredient in determining the outcome of contracts between employees and employers in the public sector. I don't think anybody debates that. But you don't need this bill to do that, You need to tell your negotiators to get out there and negotiate aggressively — be tough — within the ability of the taxpayer to pay. A competent government that knew what it was doing would not have found itself in the situation that this government finds itself in now.

If it's complaining now that these public sector contracts are out of line, who was doing the negotiating? The Social Credit government was doing the negotiating. It's a testimony perhaps to the failure of your own people to do the appropriate level of negotiating. But if you've got a problem.... And admittedly, revenue is down in this province; we know that. The government is now running a $1.2 billion deficit. If times are tough, then you go to the negotiating table with that message, and you let the free collective bargaining process do its job and arrive at a contract that respects the fact that the taxpayers' ability to pay is limited.

But you know what this government does? It cannot resist the temptation to get the politicians into that collective bargaining process — for example, the Premier. The Premier got involved in the doctors' fee dispute, and when he got into the complex area of collective bargaining with the doctors, with his rather simplistic approach to it, he was easy pickings — so easy that the doctors managed to get themselves a $25 million gift in perpetuity. This government should leave the negotiations up to its experts, not to politicians like the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight the words again of the Social Credit Minister of Labour when he indicated that this legislation has the potential to create significant labour unrest in this province. I hope that doesn't happen. But, you know, the potential for instability has an adverse affect on investor confidence. I cannot understand why this government would want to bring in legislation that would destabilize investor confidence in this province. The only explanation one can come to as to why this government wants to bring forward this type of provocative and unnecessary legislation, when there are other ways to deal with it, is that it has a political agenda which thrives on confrontation. This government somehow sees that it can gain political advantage by pitting British Columbian against British Columbian.

[ Page 11740 ]

Surely there is a better way to build consensus among British Columbians. Surely we can put forward positive programs to deal with our economic troubles and to work with people in the public sector to work within the taxpayers' ability to pay, and at the end of the day produce fair and honourable settlements between our employers and our employees in the public sector. The Social Credit way, Mr. Speaker, is not the way for British Columbia, and that's why it's time for a change.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to take my place today in support of Bill 82. I guess it's interesting to point out from my perspective that along with the member for North Peace River and others who have spoken, there are a few of us here who were here in 1982 when the first compensation stabilization program was introduced by the Social Credit government of the day. It was on that basis that I argued strongly for this legislation, because I think this is clearly the appropriate time to bring this legislation back to the province of British Columbia in light of declining revenues, which I think we're all aware of. Clearly there is an ability for the taxpayer to pay, and there is also a requisite inability for the taxpayer to pay when revenues decline.

I'm amazed again at the bravado of the New Democratic Party, who stand here as they did in 1982 and say they want to increase taxes. That's a good position to take, I guess, if you're a New Democrat, but clearly it isn't the position of our government. We believe we have to bring fairness to public sector spending. We believe we have to be responsible to the taxpayer of the province, and we believe that this is one of the measures we must take to do it.

I've always likened the social democratic view of spending to that of a new puppy, which is insatiable at one end and totally out of control at the other. I think they've clearly demonstrated that position again in their argument today.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew rambled on about other legislation, and then spoke about a different policy that we should try to adopt, and yet left the assembly without tabling or putting forward any position that indicated how they would see their approach as being different.

The Compensation Fairness Act, I think, should also.... This is not to discuss the title, which would take place in another element of the debate process, but in my mind the act should also include in the title the word "responsible," because clearly that's what we have here: a responsibility to the taxpayer.

I'd like to spend some time briefly speaking about the portfolio that I have and the administration of the university, college and institute system and how it relates to what we're discussing today. It should be noted that the compensation paid to both support staff and faculty in the British Columbia post-secondary system has increased at a rate consistent with increases in the general cost of living. That is really a proud record. I'm pleased to report to the Legislative Assembly that we have had good, responsible bargaining on behalf of the faculty associations and on behalf of those boards who are in place to govern colleges, institutes and universities, That has caused one problem, though, and it was alluded to earlier by my colleague from North Peace River — the former Minister of Education — when he pointed out that teachers' salaries have really galloped away and become less and less responsible for the taxpayers' ability to pay. That has caused some concern at the post-secondary level, where we see that a teacher with qualifications similar to those of a college instructor is receiving remarkably more money. That is something which has caused some concern in the post-secondary system.

I say that in advocacy and in fairness to the college and university instructors — particularly the college instructors. They are responsible, for example, for curriculum development. They are responsible for university transfer programs, and their products, the students, are judged fairly on what they have been able to do. They are responsible for working in many cases in the evenings, and they have, I would think, a more tedious task to perform than those in the public school system — not to take anything away from the public school teachers. Nevertheless, there is more requirement for college instructors to spend a lot more time at their jobs, to be more innovative, to do curriculum development and have responsibilities that aren't normally shared by those in the K-12 system.

On the basis of that, it is critical to me, from my point of view as a post-secondary minister, that we have some responsible mechanism such as this legislation which can ensure fairness and equitableness in the education system. Clearly, when we see that the K-12 side is rapidly running away in terms of salary settings from the institute system, we recognize that we have a problem.

It was interesting to hear our colleague from North Peace River talk about the Ontario legislation, and it's interesting to hear the New Democrats on the other side talk about promises they would make and things they would do. Bob Rae in Ontario promised no tuition increases, for example, and promised all the wonderful things he would do for the post-secondary side. Immediately upon becoming elected, he had to review his position on tuition — tuition freezes or tuition decreases — and bring in an 8 percent lift, recognizing that in fact you can't always....

HON. MR. VEITCH: Students are paying for bad fiscal management.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Bob Rae had to realize, in fact, that if you're going to be responsible you have to bring in those positions. I think we have to cast aside some of the promises that we've heard from the other side of the House, because when the rubber hits the road and when you are in the responsible position of developing budgets and legislation, there's always another way of doing it and other factors you have to take into consideration. Although it's nice to hear the

[ Page 11741 ]

comments from the New Democrats opposite, I don't really believe that they could fulfil them.

Members will know that in the early and mid seventies, I was an employee of the College of New Caledonia in Prince George. I worked there under two governments: the New Democratic government of 1972-75 and later on in the first administration of the former Premier, Bill Bennett. It was interesting to note, as an employee of that system, the NDPs total lack of concern for capital budgets. They had no problem giving everyone great salary increases, and I was a recipient of that gratuity. When I got my first cheque without even bargaining, I thought maybe the computer was spitting out the wrong information and I had been given the president's cheque or some thing. It was quite handsome. It was really a position that recognized the people component of the college — which is admirable, I guess — but in no way recognized that there had to be funding for capital projects as well.

As a matter of fact, the New Democratic record in post-secondary institutions from 1972-75 was to decrease capital by 25 percent. The result was that we had some very highly paid faculty and staff, which I didn't mind, but no room for students. The whole problem with that administration from 1972-75 was that they didn't think of students first; they thought of staff and teachers. I guess they presumed that this would be a great place to work if you didn't have those students to worry about. I used to watch Eileen Dailly come to Prince George and wring her hands when we said: "We have log cabins, portables and incredible enrolment pressures. We need places to put these students." She said: "No, you can't have that, but we'll give you an increase in salary." That doesn't do education any good at all.

Clearly that's the NDP format, and that's what they're arguing here today: let's just let that operation funding for staff, faculty and teachers carry on, and let's not worry about other revenue measures and other expenditures such as buildings that we're going to have to put in place.

I can point out quite proudly that in the case of the Ministry of Advanced Education in the current administration since 1986, we have been able to increase by six times the capital funding of the post-secondary education system. It is a remarkable increase, and I think one that's going to benefit all of us. I know we've had some recent announcements in the Kwantlen College area, in Surrey and just last week in Richmond. Of course, we've seen the tremendous improvement in access and enrolment at the university college systems in Nanaimo; Kamloops and Kelowna. A couple of weeks ago we were proud to announce the planning funding for the new University of Northern British Columbia — all of which has been brought about as a result of good fiscal policy and the fact that if you restrain and maintain control over your public purse, you have money for the purposes such as building universities and institutes and putting in classrooms for students and not salaries for teachers.

[11:30]

The member for North Peace River talked about teaching. He made an eloquent argument — with respect to pupil-teacher ratio. He pointed out that there is no evidence anywhere from any study that indicates that lowering the pupil-teacher ratio has any beneficial outcome on learning. Excellent students come as the result of excellent teachers. That is the equation. I don't think there's any secret about that. All of us here in this room — or most of us — are parents. We have children who have gone through the school system, and we know that. Let's not kid ourselves. Your students did the best in the classes that had the best teachers. I've watched my two children go through classes, and I've seen the same thing.

I have one child right now who is in a particularly difficult discipline. That child is doing really well. One of the reasons is that the teacher is a first-class teacher. He has his home phone number on the blackboard. If students have any problems doing homework in the evening, the teacher asks that they give him a call. That's remarkable and admirable. I don't know if that's done in all classrooms. I doubt if it is, but it does point out that good teaching is going to come from good teachers, clear and simple. It's not going to come from runaway wages or lower pupil teacher ratios. It's going to come as a result of the good person in the classroom teaching enthusiastic children. Let's not lose sight about that.

The act, as I said, is clearly fair. When you represent, as I do, a part of the province that's so dependent on the resource industry, where wages are clearly tied to the market of a product — and we have declining revenues — you have to argue on behalf of the people of the central interior. We must impose restraint on the public sector spending, because the private sector just doesn't have that capital. It doesn't have the cash to pay those increased costs right now.

The New Democrats and everyone watching us must appreciate that. There is a capacity to which you can tax the public. There's a limit to how much you can add to the tax burden of someone working in the resource industry, whether it be forestry, mining or manufacturing in pulp or sawmills — particularly when there are salary increases. Their salary increases are controlled by productivity and the market of the commodity they're making.

We know that settlements in the resource industries are going to be low this year. They are going to be very difficult negotiations. Yet here we have members on the opposite side say: "Listen, let those people, those IWA, CPU and PPWC workers fight it out for a tough wage restraint. We know they're going to have a tough bargaining year, because we know the price of the commodity and we know what the employer group is going to say. But let's have runaway inflation in the public sector system. Let's just totally untie that. Let's not have any responsibility for those negotiating public sector wages. Let's let you, the IWA or CPU or PPWC workers, who are tied to the productivity and the market price of your product, pay for those increases out of your measly increase.

[ Page 11742 ]

I don't think that's fair at all. I don't think it's responsible. I think that, as we did in 1982, we have to show that we are responsible government, not just to those people employed in the private sector but to all British Columbians. Because, don't forget, as has been said before and will be said again, governments don't have any money. Only the people have money. Don't ever lose sight of that.

The New Democrats seem to think that there is some sort of a deep pocket out there that sits here. It's not that way. That deep pocket, my friend, is the pocket of the TWA worker. That's what you want to reach into. Think about that as you vote against this legislation and speak about this legislation. Think about that as you argue for unchecked, unrestrained public sector bargaining. Think about whose pocket you're reaching into. Think about that when you go to the polls and when you go on the campaign. Tell the people. Tell that TWA worker in Prince George that you want to reach into his pockets. You show that continued bravado and you'll continue to stay on that side of the House, and we'll continue to stay on this side of the House.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you and the members for your time and attention. I'm totally in support of Bill 82 as written. The guidelines are published. They're clear; they're flexible; they're fair. They point up that we are a responsible government. With that said, I strongly urge all members to support Bill 82 as responsible, fair legislation.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I rise to enter this debate with a considerable amount of sadness, because it is very clear, after hearing the debate and seeing this government in four or five sessions, that this bill is only a political bill, a bill to re-elect the Social Credit government. It's sad that all they can do is drag out old, tired remedies. All they can do for their re-election campaign is present mean-spirited confrontation and insecurity to this province.

Once we listen to the speakers from the government side, it's very clear that this bill is recognition that they have failed. What this government is telling us is that they don't have control over their budget; that for some reason they are unable to negotiate fairly, to relate to the broader public sector in a way that serves the taxpayers of this province. While I reject the premise....

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is once again heckling, and I think that in and of itself is unfortunate. Perhaps the Minister of Finance would better serve by being briefed on the finances of this province than by sitting in this House and heckling members of the opposition.

What I'd like to talk about is the reality of what this bill means to peoples daily lives, because even with all of the rhetoric we've heard for the last day and a half, the government refuses to talk about the impact its legislation is going to have on the people who work for government, who work for the people of this province because very clearly they are the servants of the province as well as of this government.

I want to quote from Statistics Canada. The reality is that a two-parent family with one earner had the same income in 1988 — and, I would suggest now — as they did in 1980. Those are Stats Canada figures. The reality is that wages have not been out of line. The reality is that wages have been held at the same level as was in existence in 1980. Is there any wonder that people are feeling they are working harder and getting nowhere, with governments like this that have shifted the tax burden onto working people and now are hoping to be re-elected with a mean-spirited bill that doesn't deal with the realities?

I have a letter here from the Minister of Social Services. This is speaking directly to one of the services provided by the good people working for this government and for the taxpayers of this province. I'm speaking in particular about the community living agencies. These are agencies and facilities that are named in this act. Under the act, they are specifically spoken of when they are talking about restraining these people's wages: "...a community care facility as defined in the Community Care Facility Act."

Back in January I wrote to the Minister of Social Services pointing out to him that they were having particular problems in group homes keeping staff. We're finding people, in particular children and adults in the care of the province with mental disabilities and physical disabilities, having a real problem in the community care facilities because of the rapid turnover, which has come about because the government was not able to offer them a living wage. It was not able to give them the kind of money necessary so the community care facilities could support the quality of staff that was necessary. What that means is that people living in these group homes, who are already having a difficult time, are having the stability of their home constantly turned upside down, because there are new faces, new people to relate to, and that affects their health and their ability to do the best they can.

The letter I got back from the Minister of Social Services recognized that. He says in his letter that the ministry themselves are very concerned about that and have had a program, since 1990, to deal with wage parity in this sector and to try, in the future, to close the gap so we can maintain the kind of quality staff necessary in government services to provide the quality that people expect for their tax dollars. What this bill does is undermine that program. It says that those people with disabilities living in our community can not look forward to stability in their homes. What this bill does is continue to erode the standard of service that we have come to expect for our tax dollars.

As taxpayers, we are paying more to this government, and the quality of services that we expect for those tax dollars is being eroded by legislation such as the legislation we have before us. This government should be able to deliver the kind of services people

[ Page 11743 ]

expect for their tax dollars. The reason they have been unable to do that is because of their double standard. They are spending money on their friends, on their priorities and on the insiders. Again I want to bring to the House's attention the kind of money that this government has spent in the last couple of months: a 100-percent-taxpayer-funded pension plan for doctors and 12 percent to 20 percent increases for their political aides. Now through this legislation, this government is telling people with disabilities that they have to put up with more uncertainty and more turnover of staff.

[11:45]

Before I close, I want to nuke one other point. I want to make the comparison while the Minister of Health is in the House. One area where we're seeing some real problems in services has to do with mental health. In the mental health clinic in my own constituency, because of this government's fiscal mismanagement and because of legislation like this, we're seeing children who have suffered from sexual abuse having to wait for 12 months for care, instead of six months. When you put a face to this legislation, I don't know how members on that side, quite frankly, can vote to have those little children wait that long for the services people pay tax dollars for. I think it's criminal, and I am saddened that the government feels that this is their only hope for re-election — this kind of mean-spirited and self-serving legislation.

MR. LOENEN: I am delighted to stand here in my place and support Bill 82, the Compensation Fairness Act. I believe that it establishes a very important principle, namely that government expenditures and the growth of government must be linked and tied in to the performance of the economy. We have seen all too many governments in this country and elsewhere which have abandoned those very important principles, simply borrowed from the future, laid on debt upon debt and. allowed taxes to increase beyond what is responsible. This legislation seeks to prevent that, and I believe that we are being responsible when we do not simply take the easy route and lay on debt upon debt for future generations.

Recently my wife Jane and I became grandparents for the first time. What a joy and an experience. Suddenly you realize that we do have a stake in the future. Suddenly you realize that it is important for us to be concerned what will happen to our children and their children after them.

We have enjoyed great benefits from our society. We have opportunities that many people throughout the world do not have. In fact, people come to British Columbia not only from other parts of the world, but from other parts of Canada — some 60,000 altogether last year. We have these opportunities and have benefited from them, and I would like to make sure that we will continue to benefit and that our children after us will also have the same equal opportunities that all of us have enjoyed the choices, the freedom, the opportunity to develop our talents and abilities.

I have represented the constituents in Richmond for some 4½ years. Our goals, as we project into the future, are simple but very important, and they are simply this: we want and need to make sure that we will have clean air, clean water, good schools, an excellent health system, hospitals, nursing homes and for our community in Richmond it is Important to improve our transportation system. In fact, what we need is rapid transit into Vancouver.

When we ask ourselves how we can ensure those simple but important goals, how we can ensure that the future will be safe and secure, the answer is very simple, and we all know it. It requires a strong economy, because the economy is the engine that drives everything in our society.

How can we make sure that our economy will continue to out perform others and that we will stay abreast of our major competitors? We need to be realistic, Mr. Speaker. We need realism. It is simply that we see rising unemployment throughout Canada and also here. We see the chilling winds of a recession blowing in from the east. We see that our forest industry, the mainstay of our economy, is on its knees, primarily because of high interest rates, a high dollar and policies put in place by a government whose mentality is primarily directed to central Canada.

Housing starts — and I used to build houses — which are so important for employment and for generating economic activity, are way down. Those are the facts, and we need to be aware of them and address them realistically.

You know, when we became government in 1986, unemployment was running at nearly 14 percent, and among our young people it was in excess of 20 percent. Mr. Speaker, we do not want to see a return to those conditions. This legislation is designed to protect jobs, to protect paycheques, to make sure that we do not have runaway expenditures in the government sector.

What about the NDP? What about the socialists? Are they determined to protect the taxpayers' interests? We know they're not. In fact, I remember all too well that in each of the past four years their Finance critic would stand up and say: "Let us by all means tax our businesses and corporations more than we're taxing them now." They were asking for more taxes. And when we asked them how much, they said: "Five hundred million dollars more." We know that their promises — and it's easy to make promises — will add some $4 billion annually to our expenditures.

Are they interested in controlling the cost of government? Mr. Speaker, we've heard them. I heard the first member for Nanaimo say last year in our debate about controlling government expenditures that to live within your means as a principle was simply Victorian morality written all over again. I would like you to know that if living within our means is Victorian morality, I'm all for it. That is exactly what is lacking too often in too many places. Governments do not have the backbone, the willingness to live within their means, and that principle is

[ Page 11744 ]

embedded in this legislation: to live within our means; to make sure, as I said before, that there is a link between the expenditures in the public sector and the performance of our economy. How else can we continue the programs, the lifestyle, the livelihood that we are here to protect on behalf of the taxpayers and the people of this province?

If we look at Richmond and what has happened there recently, it's a telling example of what we can expect from a New Democrat government. Last fall we saw our community elect a school board and a council that are dominated for the first time ever by New Democrats.

The member is applauding that fact. I'd like to remind him what the result has been and what has happened. For the first time ever we have seen a city council introduce a budget which will mean a tax rise of 9.1 percent. It's the highest tax rise ever — and this during recessionary times, during a time when we see that people face layoffs and that there are increased bankruptcies of all kinds; this during a time when what we need is responsible management of people's dollars. It's the highest increase ever, and the member opposite is proud of it.

What has the school board done? Well, we have seen the school board in Richmond negotiate a settlement with their teachers which is richer and fatter than any that has been negotiated ever before. In fact, Richmond has become the benchmark for provincewide bargaining. Suddenly it has floated right to the top. Their superintendent recently told me that the impact that negotiating process will have on his budget is absolutely phenomenal. For year one alone it will mean an increase of 12 percent to 13 percent, made up of wages, increased benefits and reduced class size. How is it possible for our public sector to have increases running twice the rate of inflation? How can we possibly maintain that unless we simply borrow and lay the burden on future generations?

Why is it that we have a school board and a council that have suddenly gone for these very large increases? The answer is simple, and the people of this province ought to recognize it. The NDP council and school board are beholden to special interest groups. We know it, and we see an example of this.

In fact it goes beyond simply being beholden to special interest groups. We have a school board locally where two of the trustees are teachers in a neighbouring school district. One of those trustees is the chairperson of the school board. What does that mean? It means that in the morning, north of the Fraser River, these same people are walking the picket line while in the afternoon, south of the river, they are selling the taxpayers down the river as part of the management team. That is what is happening.

We have heard a lot of talk from the opposition about conflict of interest. We've had all kinds of talk about conflict of interest. If there was ever a conflict of interest, this is it.

Interjections.

MR. LOENEN: I hear the Leader of the Opposition trying to heckle me. If he wants to make a contribution to this, I invite him to stand up and at least tell us that in his opinion what is happening there is wrong and that it is not New Democratic Party policy to have these kinds of conflicts. Why don't you do that? Why don't you protect the interests of the people?

Mr. Speaker, this is a situation where there is clearly a conflict of interest and where the fact that the NDP is beholden to certain special interest groups in our province leaves its mark and its implications for the taxpayers of my community.

I want to continue this debate and talk about this some more after lunch. I understand it's time to break for lunch. I therefore move we adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: What you'd like to move is adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House. I would be prepared to accept the adjournment motion, but I have a feeling most of the other members of the House have another agenda, so I'll accept the first motion.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.