[ Page 11745 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 11745

Municipalities Enabling and Validating, 1990 Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 84).

Hon. Mr Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 11745

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 85). Hon. Mr. Rabbitt.

Introduction and first reading –– 11745

Tabling Documents –– 11746

Oral Questions

Pulp mill pollution limits. Mr. Harcourt –– 11746

Closure of Emily Carr Gallery. Mr. G. Hanson –– 11746

Export of water. Mr. Gabelmann –– 11747

Raw sewage treatment. Ms. Cull –– 11747

Oil spill cleanup costs. Mr. Long –– 11747

Government rental of office space. Hon. Mrs. Gran –– 11748

Compensation Fairness Act (Bill 82). Second reading

Mr. Loenen –– 11748

Mr. Harcourt –– 11749

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm, –– 11750

Mr. Blencoe –– 11755

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 11756

Mr. Reynolds –– 11759

Hon. Mr. Serwa –– 11761

Mr. Gabelmann –– 11762

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 11763

Division –– 11766

Constitutional Amendment Approval Act (Bill 81). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 11766

Mr. Gabelmann –– 11767

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 11769

Ms. Smallwood –– 11770

Mr. Couvelier –– 11770

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to make two introductions to the House this afternoon: Mr. Joao Gualberto Marques-Porto, the newly appointed consul-general of Brazil in Vancouver; also, Mr. Roger Bull, the Canadian consul-general in Seattle. Please join me in welcoming the consul-generals.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is Mr. Bob Henderson, a resident of the Queen Charlotte Islands — or Haida Gwai, as it's known. Bob is a former United Church minister, a very well respected member of the community on the Queen Charlottes, and I would ask the House to join me in welcoming him to the gallery today.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, this seems the day for it, but I take a great deal of pleasure in introducing in your gallery Monsignor Nunzio Defoe from the Gardens of Gethsemard in my riding. I would like the House to offer him a special welcome. Accompanying Monsignor Defoe is the lady of my life — and I am pleased that she is with us in the House today — my wife Marion.

MR. LOVICK: In the gallery today is a young man visiting from Toronto who is the grandson of my legislative assistant, Margaret Mortimore. I would like to ask all my colleagues in the Legislature to please make Jeremy Mortimore welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I wish to ask the members of this assembly to welcome a very good friend, a gentleman I've had the opportunity to work with on many occasions: Mr. Frieder Kempe, who resides in Coquitlam and has businesses in Abbotsford. He's up here in the gallery.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to introduce two residents of my riding who are visiting today, Len and Cyrus Lancaster, who are in the Speaker's gallery. I'd also like to recognize Mr. George Grant, who is manager of planning and economics with Chevron Canada, and Mr. John Ludgate from the Canadian Petroleum Association. Welcome to those gentlemen.

MR. REYNOLDS: I have two groups to introduce this afternoon. The first is David and Beth Mathieson from West Vancouver, and I wish the House would make them welcome. And we're pleased this afternoon to have in the House 55 Howe Sound Secondary School students with their teacher, Mr. Alger. Would the House please make them welcome.

MRS. McCARTHY: I'd like to ask the House to welcome a friend, a resident of Victoria and an avid watcher of this assembly, Mr. John Edwards.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the statement of Crown proceedings for the period 1989-90; and the annual report of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations for the period 1989-90.

Introduction of Bills

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND
VALIDATING, 1990 AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Hon. L. Hanson presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating, 1990 Amendment Act, 1991.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, Bill 84 contains measures designed to permit a new municipality, to be known as Winfield, in the Regional District of Central Okanagan, to phase in the property tax on farms and farm residences over a five-year period.

It will also allow directors for three electoral areas to represent those areas on the district of Campbell River council when the areas have been included within the district by boundary extensions.

Bill 84 also validates the establishment and borrowing bylaws of the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen for the Anarchist Mountain electrical power specified area, and it enables the regional district to convert the specified area into a local service area.

Bill 84 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Hon. Mr. Rabbitt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1991.

HON. MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce amendments to part 7 of the Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1991, which will provide a new parental leave to allow British Columbia employees to spend more time with a newly arrived child. The new provision will provide a 12-week unpaid leave for working parents. Parental leave will be available to both natural parents and to persons who have adopted a child.

The amendment will ensure protection and fringe benefit continuity to persons who are receiving parental benefit under the recent amendments to the federal Unemployment Insurance Act. Mothers will continue to be eligible for 18 weeks' maternity leave. The maximum combined maternity and parental leave allowed under the Employment Standards Act will be a total of 32 weeks.

Bill 85 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 11746 ]

Hon. Mr. Rabbitt tabled the 1990 annual report of the Industrial Relations Council.

Oral Questions

PULP MILL POLLUTION LIMITS

MR. HARCOURT: Recently this Environment minister signed regulations which allowed 11 pulp mills to exceed their former permitted pollution limits. What was illegal has, with the stroke of the minister's pen, become legal. As a matter of fact, some mills can now dump double the pollution. Is doubling the permitted discharges part of this minister's strategy to reduce pulp mill pollution?

HON. MR. SERWA: I'm pleased to hear that question because it clearly defines some of the differences between action this side of the House would take and action the other side of the House would take. Those people would shut everything down in British Columbia and throw thousands of people out of work throughout all areas of the province — young men, young women, people with families, people with homes and people with car payments. That would be your action, that's your solution; that's not our solution.

We recognize the magnitude of the task in front of the pulp mill industry to comply with very harsh, strict, but fair regulations. It takes a considerable amount of capital — over $1 billion — and it's going to take some time.

[2:15]

The permit regulations involve two things. There was clearly a departure to an engineering scenario where you start to measure emission quantities in engineering terms rather than in volume of effluent per tonne of production. We're looking for quality of effluent. That was one of the criteria. And we're allowing a legal emission, recognizing that these permits wore granted from four to seven years ago. It is no increase in emissions. That's what they were allowed under the previous permits. This is only legalizing it so we don't fine them repetitively.

MR. SPEAKER: It would assist the Chair if the person asking the question would refer at the outset to which minister the question is being asked.

MR. HARCOURT: Supplementary to the Minister of Environment. Last December it was reported that the former Environment minister suggested to pulp mill executives that the new effluent standards could be relaxed after they had served the Socreds' political needs — that is, after an election. Can the new Minister of Environment tell this House whether he is still bound by that previous minister's commitment to the industry?

HON. MR. SERWA: I would appreciate it if the hon. member opposite would readdress that question to me.

MR. HARCOURT: I asked the new minister whether he still feels bound by the reported discussions between his predecessor and the industry, indicating that the new effluent standards being introduced would be waived after they had served this Social Credit government's purposes — that is, after the election. Does this minister still feel bound by the previous minister's comments to the industry?

HON. MR. SERWA: Mr. Speaker, I have no background. I don't do business on the basis of rumours or hearsay. We have taken appropriate action. We have taken initiatives which reduce pulp mill emissions by two-thirds and more, with special stipulations for critical areas. It's the toughest regulation in Canada. We have implemented a time in that. I've asked for critical-path planning and construction progress reports so that we can monitor that as well as monitor the effluent. I'm very, very pleased with the decision we've taken, and I'm very comfortable with the appropriate and responsible decision that this side of the House has taken.

MR. HARCOURT: Supplementary to the Minister of Environment. All it takes to turn around laws in the province is a phone call to the Premier. We saw that last December. Can the Environment minister tell the House if policies are developed by his Ministry and approved by cabinet can still be overturned by a well-timed call to the Premier?

HON. MR. SERWA: The actions taken by this government are the appropriate, strict, tough actions that we had to take in response to the public for actions on pulp mill effluent. They are outstanding regulations, and they are entirely appropriate regulations.

At the present time in the present regulations, we have a limit of 2.5 kilograms per tonne. We have an objective of reaching 1.5. As a matter of fact, there are two proposals for pulp mills in the province which are closed-circuit and will have no negative environmental impact. We're proud of that. The proposed new plant for Celgar will come substantially under the 1.5 kilograms per tonne.

We have also commissioned two universities to explore and seek out new information on this particular issue, because the ability to measure parts per billion and parts per trillion is new technology. We have asked the universities to explore this and report to cabinet. Cabinet has undertaken a solid commitment to respond to the objective, factual information, and we are awaiting that report.

CLOSURE OF EMILY CARR GALLERY

MR. G. HANSON: I have a question to the Provincial Secretary. Two days from now, your ministry will close the doors on the Emily Carr Gallery here on Victoria's waterfront to make way for more government office space. With this government pouring tax dollars into empty office space around the province, it seems a poor excuse for warehousing the art of

[ Page 11747 ]

B.C.'s best-known painter. This is a significant blow to culture, tourism and education in B.C. My question is: does the minister now recognize the error of this decision? Has he decided to keep the Emily Carr Gallery open while operating arrangements are being worked out with the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria?

HON. MR. DIRKS: When I first announced the closure of the Emily Carr Gallery for March 16, there wasn't too much attention paid to it. But since that date, I have met with the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria to see what arrangements could possibly be made with that gallery for displaying the Emily Carr collection. Those discussions are now focusing on the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture.

You're quite correct: the gallery will close under the Provincial Secretary's auspices on March 16. I met with the Friends of Emily Carr yesterday, who presented me with a petition of some 120-odd names advocating that the gallery remain open. I have given them the assurance that we are concerned about the protection of that collection and that we'll certainly look at it a little further between March 16 and March 30. We will not do anything to structure in that interim period until we can decide on the disposition of that collection.

MR. G. HANSON: A supplementary to the Minister of Culture. With the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria having made representation to the minister, and having a meritorious proposal before you, have you decided to recommend to the Provincial Secretary that he keep the building open while arrangements are being negotiated so that that waterfront gallery can be kept for the benefit of all British Columbians and Canadians?

HON. L. HANSON: Yes, we are in the process of negotiating with the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria a process that will allow the gallery, if not to remain open, certainly to reopen. Those negotiations are going on at the moment, and when we have a finalized agreement, we will report back.

EXPORT OF WATER

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for two ministers: the Minister of International Business and the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the minister told the House that his government would not ship water unless "there is great benefit to the people of British Columbia." Under current government rates, the shipment of bulk water will return the province about $18 per acre-foot. Does the minister believe that this current rate of one-third of a cent per barrel is an appropriate return to the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I have reportedly stated, when asked this question, that within government we had a nine-minister committee looking at all of the regulations with respect to water exports. No, I don't think that is a high enough rent for the water, for the resource. I can also tell you that we are now in the process of analyzing very carefully what rent would or should be applicable if and when any water is shipped. I must tell you that there are many qualifications that must be met before water can be shipped from British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN: Supplementary to the Minister of Environment. Will any licences for bulk water exports be issued prior to this full assessment of pricing and other issues?

HON. MR. SERWA: The answer is going to be dependent on several things. Fundamentally, there are applications in process which we do not have complete information on, but at the present time the straightforward answer is no.

RAW SEWAGE TREATMENT

MS. CULL: I also have a question to the Minister of Environment. Shellfish growers recently cancelled a conference in this city worth $300,000 to our local community, citing as their reason the dumping of raw sewage into the ocean. This region's tourism industry will continue to suffer until we reach a solution, especially in light of the pressure from the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Congress. We've heard many promises from this government. Has the minister now finalized an action plan whereby all of B.C.'s oceanfront municipalities can gain the capacity to treat their sewage?

HON. MR. SERWA: I believe that the member opposite, if she's aware of the process, understands that the development of solid waste management plans and liquid waste management plans is the responsibility of the community — or the regional district in this particular case. The Capital Regional District is working on their liquid waste management plan. Upon receipt of that plan, we will make an assessment and make the appropriate decisions in communication with the Capital Regional District.

OIL SPILL CLEANUP COSTS

MR. LONG: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. In view of yesterday's $1 billion out-of-court settlement by Exxon Corp. with respect to the Alaskan oil spill, what steps has the minister decided to take to ensure that B.C. taxpayers can effectively recover all oil spill cleanup costs due to pollution in B.C. waters?

HON. MR. SERWA: First of all, the position of the Ministry of Environment and of the government of British Columbia is that the polluter must pay. In the case of an inland oil spill — the gulf of Georgia, perhaps — it will be the responsibility of the polluter to clean up and pay for the cleanup. If it exceeds the capacity of the polluter, the government will step in and assist in the cleanup, but the polluter will be

[ Page 11748 ]

responsible for all of the costs associated with that cleanup.

The claims by British Columbia in the Nestucca oil spill in the state of Washington are some $420,000 for the actual cleanup and approximately $1 million for environmental damage. The regulations and the actions are in place, and it will be resolved by a court decision later this spring.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer a question that I took on notice yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

GOVERNMENT RENTAL OF OFFICE SPACE

HON. MRS. GRAN: First of all, I want to acknowledge that empty space, whether it's in the private sector or government, is not desirable. I want to tell this House — in the most factual way I can — that government has a total of 8.5 million square feet of office space with a 2.3 percent vacancy rate. In Vancouver, the government's vacancy rate for office space is 3.5 percent, compared to 10 to 12 percent for the private sector.

We have 200, 000 square feet of vacant space, which is quite different than the 500,000 alleged yesterday by the opposition. Of that total, 98,000 is rented from the private sector, and that means that the cost for the period it is vacant is anywhere from $18 to $25 a square foot.

I want the House to know that the B.C. Buildings Corporation is aggressively trying to fill those spaces, and I am confident that they will.

[2:30]

I also want to say that this isn't the first time the issue of vacant office space has come to this House, but it's the first time in this session. In 1975, the then Leader of the Opposition, Bill Bennett, asked five consecutive questions and never got an answer. He then announced that the actual cost of empty office space by the NDP government came to some $356,000.

The point I'm trying to make to the members of the opposition is that government space that has become redundant is not only a problem with government but is also a problem in the private sector.

Another point I want to make; the B.C. Buildings Corporation is an award-winning Crown corporation and is well known across Canada.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on Bill 82.

COMPENSATION FAIRNESS ACT
(continued)

MR. LOENEN: Before lunch I had occasion to address Bill 82 and talk about this very fundamental and important principle — namely, that for once and for all we will seek to establish a direct link, relationship and connection between growth in government and government expenditures, and the performance of our economy and the ability of our economy to carry ever-increasing tax burdens.

I also happened to mention briefly that in Richmond we have seen the election of an NDP school board and an NDP city council, and the impact that has had on the taxpayers there. We have seen them introduce a budget which has a larger tax increase than ever before: 9.1 percent. We have seen the trustees there negotiate a settlement with the teachers that is richer than at any time before. In fact, we have now seen that School District 38 has become a benchmark for the rest of the province.

I must say that that is an indication of what we can expect when the NDP philosophy takes hold. As I said before lunch, clearly it is a case where they are beholden to interest groups such as the BCTF and the unionized city workers. We know that the strength of the Social Credit government has always been that we have not been beholden to any particular interest group and that we have tried to represent fairly and adequately all the different interests. Indeed, our motto has been: equal opportunity for all and special privileges for none.

This particular legislation seeks to address the reality we face, the economic conditions confronting us today. I cannot help but refer to a few newspaper articles. I have before me the Vancouver Sun, February 16. What does the headline say? "Bankruptcies Soaring," and it shows the various provinces. In Ontario, the richest province in Canada, bankruptcies increased by 81 percent in 1990. We note also that the gross domestic product during those past 12 months dropped some $10 billion. Those are the financial indicators that we have to confront.

I want to cite an article by Peter C. Newman, who writes in the March 4 issue of Maclean's magazine: "If taxes move much higher, there's a real danger more and more people will drop out of the system and join the underground economy."

Even today in the Vancouver Province we saw an article showing that retail businesses in the greater Vancouver-lower mainland area have a 25 percent greater tax burden than their competitors south of the border. Never mind sales tax; never mind GST; simply the tax burden that various levels of government place on our businesses — 25 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you raise taxes 25 percent?

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm asked why we don't raise taxes. We know that that is the NDP answer. In fact, every year for the past four years their critic stands up and says: "Tax corporations more. Tax the businesses more." They want to tax more to the tune of half a billion dollars. If we had followed that kind of foolish advice, do you really think we would be leading the country today in job creation? How can you ask people to create jobs when at the same time you suffocate them? That is the difference between our philosophies, our pro-

[ Page 11749 ]

grams, our initiatives, and what we can expect from across the way.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us seeks to put into place a framework whereby we can put some discipline into the system. And we should take note of the fact that other jurisdictions have seen the wisdom of this and have followed suit. For instance, the federal government in its most recent budget put a 3 percent cap on public sector wage increases. It's great to see that they're following the B.C. example.

I note that in Saskatchewan there's a 4 percent cap; in Manitoba, a 2 percent cap for the schools. We don't live in a vacuum. We have to take note of what is happening in the rest of the country and what our competitors are doing. This is responsible legislation. This is in keeping with the times. This is realistically facing the economic conditions that surround us.

It has been suggested that somehow we're more concerned about taxpayers than the kids in schools, for instance. This morning we had occasion to listen to the former Minister of Education, and he made a very important point. He said: "Isn't it curious that we see time and again that the teachers first take a 7 percent wage increase for themselves and after that suddenly become worried about class size?" If they're truly that concerned about class size, as they say they are, why do they not address that first, rather than first pocket a very hefty wage increase — far in excess of what the economy can produce and bear — and then blame Victoria for not providing enough money for reduction of class size?

Again talking about teachers, we've heard the criticism that somehow they have yet to recover from the restraint period of the early eighties. Now let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, during that time there was massive unemployment. Among professional engineers, for instance, there was a 25 percent unemployment rate. What was the unemployment rate among teachers? I think the teachers did remarkably well during that period. And they have recovered. We have increased funding for education. This government has made a commitment to it. In fact, during the past two years, funding per student in my district increased in excess of 25 percent, almost three times the rate of inflation. That is the per-student funding increase. That is a commitment to education which we made and honoured.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, we need look at performance. It's not only the input that matters but what comes out the other end. What is the performance? How well do our students do? How well do they stack up against other jurisdictions? What is the output? I want to quote from a newspaper article in the Times-Colonist of May 26, 1990. The headline says, "British Columbia Students Outperform All Others." We know that our students and our teachers have delivered a good product, and we're proud of the way their performance compares to others.

Just one more item — from the Vancouver Sun of Monday, February 6, 1989. What does the headline say? "Results Give Lie to Fears for Education." I want to quote the last paragraph in this column:

"But the latest math and science test results suggest that restraint didn't wreck the education system, nor will a massive injection from the forthcoming provincial budget necessarily make it 'excellent'.... The best results come mainly through hard work by teachers and students."

How true, Mr. Speaker. There is simply no correlation between input, the amount of money we spend, the reduction in class size and output and performance. If that were so, the studies of the social scientists would have indicated that long ago. It simply is not there. The evidence is not there.

More importantly, when we judge the needs of our society as a whole and look at the various support systems and all of the demands — the health care system — we know that if we give to any one sector more than what our economy can bear, it means that the money has to come from somewhere else. What are we going to do? Are we going to take it from the nurses and from our health care system in order to give more to education? It takes prudence and sound judgment to make the right balance. This legislation seeks to achieve that kind of balance, that kind of just solution to difficult problems.

As I said earlier, we all have simple but important goals. We would like to have clean air and clean water. We would like to have good schools and the best hospitals. Those are the kinds of goals that my constituents expect. That is the kind of future that we look forward to. But the only way we can reach those goals and maintain that quality of life and those lifestyles is if we have an economy that is sound, if we manage our affairs well and are responsible. This government has shown that it is sure of purpose, that it has a goal, that it is committed to these things and that it is committed to lifestyle and livelihood, to paycheques and to maintaining a way of life that is the best in the world.

I want to close by quoting from Abraham Lincoln, because these few quotes from Abraham Lincoln sum up in principle what we fundamentally believe in on our side of the House and what this legislation seeks to attain.

"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

[2:45]

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, we will not support this bill. It is unnecessary and unfair. It will trigger labour unrest and a loss of investment and investor confidence. It will jeopardize jobs and paycheques. It will trigger a loss of key professionals to other provinces and to the United States. Worst of all, it will hurt women — those who can least afford it. British Columbians will suffer longer lines and further-diminished public services.

[ Page 11750 ]

This bill is designed as a poke in the eye to working people. It's designed to create confrontation solely for the government's own political gain. The Minister of Labour admitted it. He said that the bill will restrict free collective bargaining and will damage relations between employers and employees. That's your way. It's not my way, and it's not the B.C. way. That's why more and more British Columbians are saying it's time for a change. It's time we got the people of British Columbia working together, and that's why as Premier I will not tolerate unfair legislation like this bill. There is a fair, practical and responsible alternative — a way to keep government spending in check in tough economic times. It starts with a government restraining itself.

It's time in this province that we got government spending priorities right and act on public — not private and not political — priorities. What we need are no more double standards, where we give 20 percent pay increases to political appointees, as has happened in the last six months alone. To give $25 million of solely taxpayer-paid pensions to doctors that could have gone into hiring 300 more nurses and could have helped thousands of British Columbians waiting for heart surgery and cancer treatment.... Furthermore, we shouldn't be putting millions of dollars into a pork barrel that's going to go to Socred-friendly companies.

Secondly, we can get better value for taxpayer dollars by using government jets for air ambulances, instead of jet-setting cabinet ministers. In terms of leased office space, lease only what you need. The minister said there's a sameness to private sector space that is vacant and waiting for private clients to rent, and space that is occupied by this government — somewhere between 200,000 and 500,000 square feet of office space that's rented and sitting vacant. There is a big difference, and I thought the minister would know that difference, but he didn't.

The third area that New Democrats think can get the economy rolling in tough times is to have fair taxes for families and for small businesses. We know that British Columbians are now paying $3,000 more in taxes and fees, courtesy of this government. We should make profitable corporations pay their fair share of taxes and target tax breaks to the small business sector that's creating over 80 percent of the new jobs in this province and to hard-pressed B.C. families who have been taxed, taxed and taxed by this government, by the GST and by the Tory federal government.

It's time that working British Columbians had a government that was on their side — not on their back. While this government preaches restraint, we have seen an enormous pre-election spending spree by the Minister of Regional and Economic Development. At the same time, ordinary men and women are expected to tighten their belts. But not this government. It's time we had a government without those double standards, and a government that believes in economic fairness. It is indeed time for a change in British Columbia.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: My goodness, that's some act to follow. I didn't know that all of the criticism of the legislation from the Leader of the Opposition could be given to us in just a few minutes. Perhaps it illustrates that they know we're doing the right thing. But they have their commitments out there to those special interest groups that must be fulfilled. Despite the knowledge of what's right and that this is good legislation, they continue on the course of opposing it because of their commitments to the large labour bosses.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said the legislation was unnecessary and unfair. Let's look at what's being done by governments across the country. Governments across the country have had to tighten up considerably more than what we're proposing to do in this legislation. But they've had to do this. As a matter of fact, some governments have not only had to put caps or a freeze on what might be provided to those working in the public sector, but they're in the process of closing down hospital beds, cutting out entire programs and cutting back on services throughout their provinces. That's what they're having to do.

The exception to this is the one that the Leader of the Opposition and the NDP in this province hold forth as their model: the province of Ontario. We refer to this because it is the best example of what the people of this province could expect if we pursued the NDP way, as the Leader of the Opposition said we ought to be doing.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We see it in Ontario, where 58,000 people have lost their jobs since the fall of last year. It's so much greater than what we see anywhere else in the Country that the figure just comes out at you. It's astounding, it's unbelievable, but it's happening in Ontario.

We see buildings in downtown Toronto that were built to the thirteenth storey and were intended to go 50 or 60 storeys. They've put a roof on it; they've quit. There are piles of lumber in Toronto that are not being utilized because there's just no further building taking place. People are being laid off, yet the government of Ontario continues to increase taxes. They are going to have a deficit this year in the range of $6 billion to $8 billion. As the Minister of Finance said yesterday, they are projecting for next year a potential $15 billion deficit. If we thought Canada was really going down to where we see Argentina or some other places to be, if we had any fear of that previously, consider what it might be now when we see this happening in Ontario with an NDP government.

This is positive legislation; this is moving in advance of a problem. Certainly it's not easy in government to always be popular, to do the nice things, to satisfy and try to please all people, to sit on the fence, to try to do this for this group and, when you visit somewhere else and address another group, to tell them that you'll do something differently

[ Page 11751 ]

again. That's not possible when you're in government. You have to be decisive. You have to do things, and not just for today; you need to do things for the long term.

As a matter of fact, our legislation — our actions — in the whole of the taxpayer protection plan is to not only provide for today but also give consideration and concern to our children and our children's children. That's totally contrary to NDP philosophy.

Do you care, really? Have you ever expressed anything, or taken or suggested direction, that cares about the young students sitting up here in the gallery today, and their future, and the fact that government shouldn't burden them with a pile of debt, that they shouldn't be paying for all the things we want to do today, that there's something left for them — not only their education but their future economic activity — and that they're not having to face the shutdown of beds in hospitals and the like because we, as people in government today, simply threw it away, increased the taxes or, perhaps worst of all, created this horrendous debt?

This government does not subscribe to that philosophy of burdening our young people for generations to come. They might in Ontario, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. You may think this is great and want to copy it, but one of the first things the government in Ontario did was increase the fees considerably beyond what we've seen elsewhere for those having to attend college or university.

Despite all of that, they're still running these horrendous deficits because they're continually creating new programs and doing exactly what the Leader of the Opposition and the other NDP members would have us do — see increases for some in the public sector which are far beyond what they can afford to pay in the private sector. Who do you think has to come up with all of those tax dollars? You and your NDP Finance critic can say: "Well, we'll just sock it to business." That's easy — double the taxes for business.

Politically, that sounds like something which might be acceptable to many of the people. It's an easy answer. But when those businesses begin to fold, one after the other — small business, medium business, big business alike — what do you think will happen? There will be unemployment. There will be less revenue to government. We'll be in a far worse state.

It may be a simple answer for the NDP to say, "We'll sock it to business; we'll double their taxes, particularly big business," but keep in mind as well that there are many little businesses dependent on medium and big businesses. You cannot somehow sock it to people and expect them to survive all the time and continue to support a government which has a tremendous spending appetite such as we see with the NDP government in Ontario. It can't be done. The country can't survive.

This province wouldn't survive under the NDP beyond the 1,200 days that we saw previously. They couldn't possibly last that long. They'd bankrupt the province. We'd see happening here what we see happening in Ontario today. That's not a scare or a threat; that's a statement of fact. We've heard it said by some of your members. Certainly we've heard it said by Leonard Krog, who is a candidate for the NDP in Parksville-Qualicum. He said: "If we as NDPers are to be honest, we have to tell the people that they're all going to pay a lot more taxes."

Leonard Krog was immediately kind of beaten upon, I think, by some of the other NDP members in caucus here. They muzzled him very quickly, and we haven't heard from Leonard Krog since. I don't know what has happened to him. Leonard was honest. He said the NDP in this province is going to increase everybody's taxes — and they will be increased considerably — but since then somehow we haven't heard from Leonard Krog.

[3:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We do have a problem in this country; there's no doubt about that. We suffer because of the horrendous debt we've seen created in Ottawa and its impact on every part of this country. We see the debts that have been created by other provinces and their impact on the entire country. We know that people, when they look to invest in this country — be they in Asia, Europe, other parts of North America or wherever — often, understandably, look at central Canada, where Ottawa is located. They look at Ontario and see it to be sort of representative of Canada. If they look at Canada today and at what we see happening in Ontario, they'll not be investing here in new business; they'll not be investing here in the expansion of business. Things will grow gradually worse.

Again, we have to set the example in this province by being leaders in providing the type of legislation we see here today, legislation which still provides freedom for those in the public sector to negotiate but which simply says.... And frankly, I don't see a thing wrong with this. It says: "Public sector, you can have your wage increases, but you can't have as much as you'd like, because there is a limit to what taxpayers can pay." You can't, particularly during bad times, Mr. Leader of the opposition, continue to reach into people's pocket to see if there's another loose loonie that you might have for government to create yet another program or to pay more to those in the public service.

There has to be a balance. You can't have the IWA workers, the pulp workers — if they're still working.... Should you ever have the opportunity, you'd shut every pulp mill down, like right now; we heard that a little earlier today. I care about those IWA workers, those pulp workers and all of those other people. They'll not be getting increases such as we've seen given to teachers for the last four years; they can't get that. There simply isn't enough return in the woods industry now, with the slowdown in housing in the United States, with the dollar being where it's at and with interest rates being high. They can't possibly hope to pay the sorts of increases we're seeing being provided to teachers and others in the public sector.

[ Page 11752 ]

Now don't get me wrong. I support these workers. I believe that our public sector workers do a great job. I wholeheartedly support our teachers, and I don't mind a teacher being well paid or a nurse being very well paid or others being well paid. I believe that's right and proper. But during times like this you can't have a government throwing more at the public sector when the private sector is having to draw back or to contain the amount of increase they might otherwise provide. There needs to be a balance, and the taxpayers today simply cannot be asked to fork out yet more money.

I realize that the argument from the opposition could be: "Mr. Premier, in British Columbia we have overall, everything considered, the lowest tax rates in the country." That's true; I appreciate that. But that is also one of the reasons we've seen people coming to invest in British Columbia like they've not seen in any other province in the country. It's why we're the most popular spot in Canada, perhaps in North America. It's why people are looking to put their dollars here, because they see it to be a safe place with lower taxes and with good legislation.

I heard the member for Vancouver Centre, the Leader of the Opposition, say: "Well, it's like Bill 19. It's like the labour legislation" — as if somehow this legislation will cause all sorts of labour unrest; as a result there will be no end of labour unrest and unhappiness; all sorts of things might occur because of the legislation. But you know, we've heard that before. I can recall the Leader of the Opposition standing up in this House and saying: "Bill 19 will be such a disaster that we'll see businesses shutting down, we'll see jobs being lost, we'll see unemployment like we've never seen it before, we'll see businesses and people leaving the province and we'll see chaos." Quite the opposite was true. Again, he was wrong, as he's always wrong. He was totally wrong, because we've seen growth in business like we've never seen it before. We've seen growth in business beyond anything anywhere else in the country.

At one point last year this province, with only 12 percent of the population, created half of all the new jobs in the whole of Canada. We've led the country in every respect when it comes to good fiscal management, good economic management and good legislation. We're number one. Every other province looks to us with great envy.

Now it's true, we have people out there.... Obviously the members opposite would like to see the NDP in government. That's one of the reasons I have to point to Ontario as an example, because we have people moving in droves to this city, to Vancouver and to other communities throughout this province from Ontario, wanting to get away from the NDP, and they've only been in power since some time last fall. It's been a disaster. The whole economy is collapsing around great, strong, powerful Ontario. It's falling apart because they're introducing the sort of legislation that was being introduced in this House during those miserable 1,200 days in the early seventies when the NDP governed in this province. They're introducing the same type of legislation, and they're throwing money away in the way we saw during those black, miserable 1,200 days in the early seventies. You'll recall that for the first time this province had a deficit. You will recall that the NDP in the early seventies created unemployment and labour unrest in proportions such as we've never seen — certainly 754 percent over what we saw in the last three years. It was chaos. It's now happening in Ontario. There are those opposite who want to do it all over again to this province. They'd love to create the big deficits, get on to big spending programs and put this government in the red and in terrible problems once again.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition made reference to something that I would like to elaborate on a little. In speaking to this bill he made reference to our negotiations with the doctors. I am pleased that the Health critic for the NDP is in the House right now because that man went on radio the next day and said that the Premier did the right thing and that this was the proper thing to do. It's on record. We have the tapes, and it's all there. He was supportive of what was being done. Then in no time — immediately after — he was muzzled. He has now been shifted off to the blue curtain in the far corner. I like him. I think he's an honest and nice man. I like your Health critic. But you've shoved him off in the corner by the blue curtain, and he's not allowed to say anything anymore. He even used to get up in question period once in a while, but now we don't hear from him anymore. I wish he'd ask me a question sometime. He used to do that. He was supportive of what we did.

The NDP Leader of the Opposition said: "No, no. No pension. No retirement savings plan. We don't like retirement savings plans. Instead we want to put the increase on the fees." They simply haven't figured it out yet. I must repeat that had this same $25 million been put on fees.... Incidentally, of course, this $25 million was far legs.... Now you can argue it's not a big amount of money when compared to $1 billion for doctors in total, but $25 million is a lot of money. You could argue, as you have done, that it should go on the fees. But if you put it on the fees, not only is it there forever, it becomes the base upon which other increases get piled. Also, it means that as the number of doctors in the province increases, the amount that comes out of the fees is far greater. As we get more immigrants — particularly from Ontario, and they're coming out in droves to get away from the NDP — the amount again increases dramatically.

Although the Leader of the Opposition made reference to that, I want to repeat that it was by far the least expensive way to deal with it. Furthermore, it's the right way. Every group in our society should have the opportunity through whatever mechanisms — be it legislation or otherwise — to provide for their retirement years during their productive years. If we, as a society, continue to look to the Canada Pension Plan to be the cure-all for us all.... There are many of you on that side and many of us on this side who in ten, 15 or 20 years could be looking to that pension — although, as people in government, we have pretty

[ Page 11753 ]

good pensions anyway. But many people out there are not so fortunate; they don't have that opportunity.

Doctors may be quite the opposite, I'll grant you. They have very good incomes.

MR. BARLEE: Some of them make $900,000 per year.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If there's a doctor, as the second member for Boundary-Similkameen said, making $900,000 a year, I agree that's certainly enormous. But you're being grossly unfair to the doctors when you begin to single out a specialist and use that as the example. I know that's the socialist way of doing things. But the average for the doctors, as the Health critic for the NDP well knows, is a lot less — and they pay their expenses. Frankly, I don't mind a doctor getting a fair return. I don't hate doctors. I don't pick on doctors. During every question period the NDP picks on the doctors, during every debate, regardless of what the bill, you pick on the doctors and create the impression, simply by using incomplete information out of context, that there's something horrendously wrong. It's grossly unfair to the doctors in our province, who I believe are good, committed people. You'll find the odd one, as the Health critic knows — as you'll find in every group — who perhaps doesn't come up to the standard we expect. But I'll tell you that, by and large, we can be very proud of our doctors.

I don't mind the doctors having a deferred income plan; I think that's healthy. Not only is it healthy in the sense that this money then gets put back into the economy here during its time of investment, but it's also healthy in that we should be providing the means, the opportunity and the encouragement for all people to put away during their productive years in order to provide for themselves during their retirement years. I want this for every British Columbian; I think that's great and deserving.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention many other things as they relate to this bill and to what we're trying to do in order to keep this economy sound and number one in the country. But I'll try to boil it down to just a couple of points that I still want to make before closing.

This legislation is fair, and I underline "fair." It allows people to negotiate, but it relates what we can eventually pay to the taxpayers' ability to pay and to the moneys available without going back to the taxpayers for a whole lot more or putting the province into debt. What's so wrong with that?

[3:15]

If that's how we do it in business.... If you run a sawmill and produce X number of two-by-fours, what you pay the people who produce the two-by-fours — at least in the long haul — must somehow relate to the price of those two-by-fours or the return from the sale of those two-by-fours. That's simple business, members of the NDP. The private sector, which is the strength of the economy, which holds up the whole of the economy and which pays the taxes, has to live by those rules.

Why do you believe that somehow the public sector can continue on for whatever the increase, regardless of the times or of what we see happening in the private sector, and that we in turn as government can just carry on going back to the taxpayers, many of whom do not have full employment and may not be earning that high a wage...? How do you think we can continue to go back to them and increase income tax, sales taxes and property taxes? It doesn't make sense,

This legislation recognizes that; it's good legislation. I would like the NDP to reconsider. I understand your commitments to big labour bosses. We saw the example in Nanaimo last fall when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking to a CUPE convention. The Leader of the Opposition said that if they would elect him as Premier, he'd tear up the Social Credit's labour legislation. Immediately after, one of the CUPE delegates summed it up and said: "For every dollar we spend electing the NDP, we get back $10." Now that sort of sums it up. It tells a lot, doesn't it?

The second member for Richmond was right when he said that we as a political party — Social Credit — are not beholden to any particular group. We represent all of the people. There are no special interest groups. You like to keep throwing that out, because you know that you can't exist without your special interest groups. In order to camouflage that fact, you keep throwing it at the Social Credit. But the CUPE member at the convention in Nanaimo, speaking after the leader of the NDP, said it very well: "Every dollar we give to the NDP for their election will return us $10."

I suppose that is a consideration when you're looking at the legislation that we now have before the House. It is legislation which will keep this economy sound, which says that we care about the people today and about those who might be looking to retirement in 10, 15 or 20 years. We care about those young people who are up in the gallery and about their future. We're not about to saddle them with horrendous debts. It can't go on. This country cannot survive if we keep piling on the debt. Every province in this country needs to follow the example we're setting in British Columbia.

This legislation provides for all in the public service. It provides not only that there be limits to how much we can negotiate for increases in pay that's certainly one of the provisions, I grant you. But it also provides that recognition be given to those groups who may have been left behind and that a means be provided for many of the women in the public sector who perhaps have occupied jobs — oftentimes true enough — at the lower pay to be brought up. Keep in mind that it was Social Credit that first recognized that something needed to be done to address that problem and to bring about a greater equity in pay. We believe in that. This legislation recognizes that, and that's important.

[ Page 11754 ]

We've heard a lot from the members opposite about so-called 19 percent increases some weeks ago to some in the public service at the higher levels. They're referring, of course — and they won't tell the whole story or the whole truth — to some changes in classification, which is a common practice in governments everywhere in the country as well as in the private sector.

It's a common practice, Mr. Member for Vancouver East, that you don't necessarily give people increases after they've been with you for a long time or because of their learning and performance, but in fact that you up them in the range. Someone else learning and needing to fill another position will come in at the lower part of that range and work her or his way through the system to a higher range. That's what you picked up on and conveniently used to try to create the wrong impression with people out there viewing this program today or reading about it in the paper or hearing it on television on the 6 o'clock news.

This legislation recognizes that there are people within the public service whose relevant positions may be overpaid or underpaid. I use the example of a deputy in government, who makes about $100,000 a year.

MR. CLARK. Wow!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: "Wow," he says. That's a little more than you make, Mr. Member for Vancouver East, and you come here for only a few months of the year, and for the rest, you're travelling around the province.

The Leader of the Opposition gets as much as a deputy, and he has been in the House more in the last three days than he was during the whole of the last session.

One hundred thousand dollars for a deputy. But when you compare that to, say, a school principal who might be getting $84,000 for looking after a school with 300 or 400 kids.... I'm not saying a school principal shouldn't be paid that, but compare it. Compare it to a school superintendent who looks after a district and gets perhaps $110,000 or $115,000 or $120,000. Is it fair that the deputy should be lower or, for that matter, higher? That's probably the better question. Or is it fair that the Deputy Minister of Health, looking after the whole of the health care system...?

I know the deputy ministers here. They work from early Monday morning to very late Friday night and then take work home on the weekends. Is it fair that this Deputy Minister of Health should get $100,000 while a hospital administrator in a relatively small community gets $150,000? One of them, at least, that we're aware of in Vancouver gets about a quarter of a million dollars for administering a hospital. Is it fair that an administrator looking after one hospital should get a quarter of a million dollars and a deputy $100,000?

This bill deals with that problem. It allows for the range to be narrowed and equity to be brought into the system. This bill deals with those inequities.

The bill deals with one....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You haven't read the bill. You've been talking about this bill, and you haven't read it.

This bill also deals with job security. In business, if you can't pay the wages or the salaries or the increase, you end up laying people off. In government perhaps that hasn't always been the case. As you are aware, in Ontario now, while thousands of people are leaving, they're again hiring in government. They're trying to fill all the jobs lost. They've lost 58,000 jobs. Do you think the NDP government in Ontario will hire 58,000 people? I'll bet you they'll try. That's typical of what we saw during those dark 1,200 days in the early seventies — the very same thing. And we'll not return to those dark 1,200 days, because the people out there really won't have it. They really haven't forgotten. They truly understand.

This bill provides job security in several respects. One, it says that if public servants or those in a particular area of the public sector will choose to select increases as set forth in the guidelines by the commissioner, if they will accept those percentage increases, their jobs will be maintained securely.

MR. PERRY: We're worried about your job.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll talk about my job in a minute.

The other aspect of the bill that maintains those jobs securely is people in the public service being reasonable. With the help of this legislation and the guidelines, their jobs will be maintained securely, because we as a government will continue to carry out those programs. We will keep hospitals open; we will keep health clinics open; we will keep schools going; we will keep expanding the college programs; we will keep providing university expansions and opportunity; we'll keep social programs in place. You can't do that if you follow the NDP approach. Therefore this legislation is very positive.

The members opposite ask me about my job. I realize that is perhaps an aside from what we're discussing when talking about this legislation. But since the question was asked, I must respond. I don't think the contest is between Bill Vander Zalm, as he stands here on television, and the Leader of the Opposition, as he powders his face for television each day and comes here in his new suit. I don't think that's the measure. I don't think the measure is necessarily even doing all of the things that people would like to see done. You're underestimating the people. You're somehow assuming that they will overlook all of this and that other things will perhaps occupy their time and make them decide a particular way when the writ is dropped and the big day is before us. I don't believe it's that.

[ Page 11755 ]

I think that in the final analysis, people, because they're smart — and I give them credit.... I think you have to like people to understand people, and somehow I don't believe you people on the other side fully understand the people. I would urge you to give careful consideration to this, because in the final analysis people will measure performance. They will see what we've done, and they will understand that when we compare this province to any province in the country, we are number one in every respect. That's not just because we're saying it. It's so because it's being said by people in business and in government — the experts who measure performance in government — all over the country and the continent, and elsewhere in the world.

This government has outperformed any government in Canada by a country mile. The people will understand that. They will also come to understand — and I'm sure they do already — that when we introduce this sort of legislation, it may not be popular. It could be that there are going to be people protesting out on the lawns as we've seen before. That could well be; I don't doubt that could happen. I suppose the easy thing would be to say: "Look, we don't want to do this to upset things before the election. We'll not bring in this legislation." That might be an easy way through it, but is that a responsible thing?

The NDP would go out and tax, tax, tax people to death and eventually take all they own, and all of their belongings, and make it mortgaged somehow because of the hunger of government. That's the NDP. Or they would put this province into the horrendous debt situation that we see happening in Ontario. The people will see that. So you see, in the final analysis, I believe that people will understand and make the right decision.

Mr. Speaker, this is great legislation. It's part of a total package to protect the taxpayers of this province and to provide this province with the necessary security to keep us number one in every respect. I support the legislation. I would urge everyone in the House to do likewise.

[3:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Before I start, as the member for Victoria I would like to welcome all my colleagues from both sides of the House back to the Legislature, back to Victoria. I hope your stay is enjoyable; it won't be a long stay. I know the Premier knows the city of Victoria as the City of Gardens, and I know he has a deep interest in gardens. We hope to give him some more time in his garden very soon.

Mr. Speaker, we enjoyed the speech by the Premier, and his attempt to bolster a failing government. He said: "The people will measure performance." The Premier said that this afternoon. I can assure you, the people will measure the performance of this government. They will measure the last four years of tax increases, scandals and double standards. They will look at the record of this government, and I think they're ready to say that it's time for a change. It's time for integrity in government. It's time for honesty. And it's time for a government to be straight with the people of British Columbia. They will measure the performance of this government.

Before the Premier leaves.... After the Premier spoke today, if you're so sure, leave today and let's have the election, because the people of British Columbia are waiting for the election. They want an election.

On this side of the House we made it quite clear that we are opposed to this bill on a number of grounds, but the major one is the evident double standard that appears in this government's rhetoric and performance. I listened this morning to the Minister of Regional and Economic Development, to how he seriously looked into the camera and told the people of British Columbia of his deep concern for the taxpayers of this great province. He says one thing to the people of British Columbia from this chamber but does something totally different when he's outside the building.

If there was ever a performance that is an example of the double standard that is so inclusive in this legislation, it was from that minister, the minister who appears to have rented a bunch of trucks and to be driving across this province shovelling out that same taxpayers' money that he purported this morning to be so concerned about. It seems to me that this minister's major job in terms of economic development is renting trucks in British Columbia to give the taxpayers' money away. Yet at the same time he says in this House that this plan is to save the taxpayers. Well, the double standard is unbelievable.

We've seen the evidence in the last few months. I mean, there are so many examples we could give of the double standards of this government in terms of this legislation. For example, if every night the people of British Columbia have to see their taxes squandered on advertising.... In excess of $50 million spent on television advertising. Yet this government says it's concerned about the taxpayers' money.

We've covered the doctors issue, the $25 million for perpetuity, the millions of dollars that this government is prepared to give to that pension scheme. Mr. Speaker, the Premier defended the pay raises for the insiders, the political appointments of this government, those huge increases. But he missed the very important point that the double standard is so evident: that for insiders and friends of the government and political appointments, pay raises know no bounds; but for the ordinary people who serve this government, there are indeed incredible restrictions, and they are to be frozen. He doesn't understand that, and he stands today to defend that double standard. I mean, if there isn't anything more symbolic in terms of what's happened to this government and the double standard and why the people want change, the Premier gave us every example this afternoon. Freeze everybody else, yet give whatever increases you see fit to your political appointments and ministerial assistants.

Yet we have other examples. I've never heard the Premier or any of those ministers over there talk about the Coquihalla in terms of its fairness or

[ Page 11756 ]

unfairness — the $500 million of public money squandered on overruns. Where was the concern from the same...?

HON. MR. SERWA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I take that member to task for making a statement in this House which is blatantly untrue. An investigation took place with respect to the Coquihalla. It was clearly enunciated that no waste of capital funding went into that. That was clearly indicated as a result of the inquiry. The member should apologize to the House for making that statement.

MR. BLENCOE: I presume from your saying no comment that, indeed, Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying is quite correct: no one on that government side ever apologized to the people of British Columbia for half a billion dollars of overrun. Where was the restraint then? You paved over snow. Where was the concern for the taxpayers' money then? The double standard is unbelievable. Where was the Premier in saying that that was wrong?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The former Minister of Education talked this morning about the necessity to shortchange children in our schools by cutting back. But did he talk about the scandalous overrun? Did he talk about the scandalous back-of-the-truck spending that's going on right now by this government — the ministerial increases? And at the same time he's telling everybody else: "One rule for our friends; but everybody else, legislation" — legislation that suspends some of the basic things we believe in in the province of British Columbia.

When this bill came down, I looked for the motives. What could be the reason? Mr. Matkin, someone you highly regard, Mr. Speaker, as we do on this side of the Legislature, head of the Business Council of British Columbia, said that there was no need for such legislation. The climate doesn't justify a plan such as this. He said, interestingly enough — I was trying to look for another motive — that the public and private sector wage settlements are close; there is no discrepancy. Where's the motive that could actually defend this legislation? Mr. Matkin can't even find the motive.

We know that it's double standards. We know there is no real justification. But we do know that what's going on here is a government that is so desperate in its death throes to create an issue to destabilize, once again, the province of British Columbia that it's prepared to introduce this kind of legislation.

The double standards are clear. One rule for the friends of government and insiders, one for the Premier who gave $25 million — and now every year — for a pension fund for the doctors. At the same time, what happens to the nurses and everybody else? They have different rules.

The people have seen through this. They are saying: "We're ready. It's time for a change. Let's have an election."

I oppose this legislation.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's my pleasure to make a few comments on the bill, because I think it's very fair, very necessary and very timely. I'll expand on that in a few moments.

First of all, though, I just have to make a few comments about the previous two speakers from the opposition. I don't think I've heard more tired old clichés than I have from the second member for Victoria or the Leader of the Opposition. It's plain to see the new approach over there. I kind of liked it better when he whined and snivelled like he used to do. But now he's cleaned up his act. He's looking into the television cameras like his leader did, because they intend to use these for clips during their campaign.

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about dollars from regional economic development, and the Leader of the Opposition talked about closing pulp mills. It seems to me that this party across the way is totally against the working people of British Columbia. They don't seem to think we should be salvaging operations like we did with the Evans operation in Golden, or that we should be trying to rescue plywood mills in the city of Vancouver or any other facility we have deemed it necessary to put money in to preserve jobs of working men and women. All he could do was slam the Minister of Regional and Economic Development because of some of the decisions this government has made.

He talks about doing it for insiders and friends. I repeat: if the workers at Evans in Golden or at the plywood mill in Vancouver, or Victoria for that matter, are insiders and friends of this government, then I'm proud to call them friends of mine and of this government.

The member, as usual, has to dredge up the Coquihalla Highway. I would remind that member that a full investigation was done, as my colleague the Minister of Environment pointed out. I would also point out to that member and members on that side that, at the time we decided to accelerate the construction of the Coquihalla Highway, the road building industry in this province was on its knees, Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers were making tons of money auctioning off construction equipment, because we were into the depths of a recession. If we hadn't accelerated the building of the Coquihalla Highway at the time we did, the list of unemployed would have grown dramatically, and road-building companies in this province would have gone out of business and their equipment gone to the auction block.

I have no qualms about looking at the members opposite — or yes, into the television camera for the folks back home — and saying that I'm proud of the job we did on the Coquihalla Highway. I have no hesitation in supporting it. In fact, talk to anyone who lives in Kamloops, Merritt, Kelowna or the Okanagan and ask them what they think of the

[ Page 11757 ]

Coquihalla Highway. Ask them what it's done for their constituency and what it will do in the years to come.

The second member for Victoria says: "I want to look for motives behind this legislation." If you can give me just a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to tell you the motives behind this legislation. The motive is to bring responsibility to those who bargain with other people's money. It's very easy to sit at a negotiating table and sign agreements during rough times when you are spending someone else's money. People are not always so frugal with other people's money as they are with their own.

[3:45]

The member for Burnaby North yesterday gave us some perfect examples of public sector bargaining that got out of hand, when he talked of wage increases of 17, 18 and 19 percent. I'll bet the member for Burnaby North accepted those settlements as well, when he was in the teaching profession at the time.

The private sector, as has been said here many times, has constraints upon it. The economy, markets, the way that the country happens to be going at any particular time and the competitiveness of business keep constraints on the private sector. This year, for example, when the forest industry is going through a rough time — pulp and solid-wood markets are turning down — it's going to be a rough year for negotiations. It's going to be rough on the pulp workers and on the IWA members when they sit down to bargain, because the companies they work for are in tough financial shape.

What sort of constraints are on the public sector when they sit down to bargain? I submit that without legislation like this there are no restraints or constraints on those who bargain for those who work in the public sector.

As the Premier said a few moments ago, we want to see our public servants — whether they work directly for government or for Crown corporations or school boards or hospital boards — well paid. There's no question about that. But we don't think that they should be negotiating huge wage increases when those in the sawmills are accepting layoff notices.

In my constituency alone there are hundreds of sawmill workers who are either laid off temporarily or are working short weeks — three days a week on a work-share basis. How do they feel? How does that pulp mill worker in Kamloops or that IWA member feel when he or she has to go home with a short paycheque or no paycheque at all, and those in the public sector are receiving increases far beyond the cost of living? And who is paying the bills, Mr. Speaker? It's that IWA worker or pulp mill worker or construction worker or the clerk in the grocery store who's paying the bill for settlements that in many cases go way beyond what the private sector can afford.

I watched the Leader of the Opposition stand in this House a few moments ago with his carefully powdered head, looking straight into the camera behind me because he wants to use the clips during his election campaign — it's quite obvious. I have no doubt in my mind as he salivates over sitting in this chair.... I watch him eyeing this chair beside me quite often, and he is so anxious to get here he can hardly constrain himself. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, it will never happen. The people of British Columbia are too smart to ever let that happen. But I watch, as he says with one breath that the workers of this province need a government that cares about them, and yet a few minutes earlier he stood in this House and said he would close down pulp mills in this province. You talk about a double standard. You can't have it both ways. He wanted to bring in a bill and a commissioner to deal with plant closures. Now you know why he would need a bill to deal with plant closures: because he would be closing them down. You can't have it both ways. The people are too smart.

When he stands up and says, "I want to double the size of parks as soon as I'm elected," who is going to pay for it? Depending on whose figure you accept, either 2,400 or 8,000 IWA jobs would be lost; somewhere in there. Those jobs would be lost. Yet he would do it like that if he were ever elected.

I have no doubt that if, heaven forbid, the Leader of the Opposition and that party ever formed a government, they would get rid of this act immediately. They would get rid of it immediately, as Dave Barrett said he would do back in about '83 sometime. He would get rid of it immediately were he elected. First of all, he won't be elected; and secondly, he would think very carefully before he got rid of it.

When the people of this province — I mean this sincerely — total up the spending promises of that party, they will be terrified. We'll help them total up the spending promises of the socialist democrats opposite. They already total somewhere in the neighbourhood of $6 billion. Figure out how much money that is. I ask you to sit down and write it on a piece of paper. The interest alone on that is frightening. When the people start figuring the cost of NDP promises, they will be terrified, and they will really stop and think, and they'll think about a bill like this that puts some constraints on public rector bargaining.

Let's just look at a few examples of where there's a so-called social democratic government in power. The Premier already used the example of Ontario, where they are anticipating a budget deficit this year of somewhere between $6 billion and $8 billion, and next year who knows. In typical fashion of a socialist government, they are going to try to spend their way to prosperity. And they will do it for all the right reasons. They will stand up and give all the good humanitarian reasons why they must spend this money, as has been done in northern European countries.

If you want to see what a government is made of, look in other jurisdictions where they have a similar type of government. Take a look in the northern European countries. I had the pleasure to travel there the year before last to look at some of their social programs. Let me point out right here and now that

[ Page 11758 ]

they have had social programs in those countries a lot longer than we have. They've had them for 100 years. And they did them for all the right reasons. They're a very compassionate, very caring people, as we are here — as you are and we are. But what happened is that it got out of control on them. They had no way of saying no, or they didn't have the backbone to say: "We can't afford that." Look where they are now — exactly where we will end up should a social democratic government ever be in charge in British Columbia. Where are they now? They have a GST over there. They call it a VAT tax, but you can call it any name you want — it's the same thing. They have a GST, depending upon which country, of 22 to 25 percent on everything that you buy. It's 22½, 23 or 24 percent on the necessary items. In some of the countries it's 35 percent on automobiles, VCRs and televisions — some of the luxury items we all like to have, that we cherish and derive a great deal of pleasure from in this country.

On top of that, besides a GST of up to 25 percent, the ordinary working person in those countries pays income taxes of as high as 70 percent. This is the average working person I'm talking about. I'm not talking about those at the upper end of the income scale. I'm talking about the average person making the equivalent of $30,000 a year Canadian and who pays 65 to 70 percent income tax.

That's because you have a government, like the NDP, which knows only how to spend. They never talk about where the dollars come from. If they do, they talk about it in a derogatory fashion. What generates the wealth in this province? You heard the second member for Victoria — "You're bailing out plants in this province and doing special favours for your insider friends." But what generates the dollars? Is it the 700 people working in the sawmill in Golden and in the plywood plant? I think it is, and I have no problem supporting measures put forward by this government and delivered through the Minister of Regional and Economic Development. I do have a problem when you don't put any constraints on public sector spending.

The Leader of the Opposition today latched onto something new that they've discovered — some vacant office space in downtown Vancouver. They'll probably harp on that for a while. I will tell you something. I don't think it'll ever happen, but should that party become government, we won't have to worry about vacant office space. I tell you, if I had the dollars, I would advise someone in Victoria to start building office space if the NDP ever became government, because they'd fill it up. They'd fill it up so fast it would make your head spin. We'd have a civil service something like Ottawa has.

Ottawa hasn't realized the source of their problem. I think that the federal Minister of Finance is in a tough spot. I think he made some prudent moves during this last budget. But with the greatest of respect to him, I say that he hasn't put his finger on the problem. The problem is that they've got a bureaucracy back there that's out of control. Worse than that, I think it's in control. The size of it is out of control, and I think the decision-making of it is in control.

I'll repeat what I said to the media in Kamloops. I will know that the federal government is sincere about reducing the budget when deputy ministers in Ottawa — 43 of them, who make an average of $130,000 or $140,000 a year — cease to have chauffeur-driven cars. I'll know then that they are serious about dealing with the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, lest you think that I'm off the topic, with due respect, I'm not. I'm talking about public sector spending, about putting some responsibility and constraints on spending other people's money. With this bill, we are being honest and upfront with all public sector employees. We're telling them that they can bargain fairly for working conditions and wage increases, within certain limitations and within reason. We expect them to do the same, and we wish them well with their bargaining. Most of them do very well.

We're being honest and upfront by saying there have to be some constraints on you. The NDP is afraid to stand up here and be honest and forthright and say: "Where is the extra $6 billion coming from?" All this money you're going to spend....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Your leader said in Kamloops about 214 years ago that we were underspending by $3 billion, and it's grown since then.... The first member for Vancouver–Point Grey said on the Rafe Mair show that if she had the decision to make, she would double the day care budget in the province every year for four years. It's on the record.

That's just some of the spending that they talk about. Almost every member on that side has put forward programs that would increase spending. Be honest with the people; stand up here and tell them where you're going to get the money. That's what the people deserve to know.

It's very easy for you to stand up there and say: "If we were making the decisions, we'd do this and this and this." But put a price tag on it, and look the people who pay the taxes right in the eye and tell them where you're going to get the money. Where will the billions come from? At least be like Leonard, your candidate up in Nanaimo; at least be honest about it. Leonard's hottest, if nothing else.

I think that the essence of this bill is really to say that we respect the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia and their ability to pay. They're the ones who have to pay the bills. They're the ones who get the layoff notices when industry turns down. It happens. There are downturns in the economy, and those put real constraints on the private sector. The same constraints don't happen in the public sector.

This is good legislation, Mr. Speaker. I am of the opinion that there should always be a mechanism to ensure that the public sector settlements never exceed those in the private sector. The private sector should lead the way. The negotiating process will guarantee that. It will guarantee that they get raises

[ Page 11759 ]

that are due and earned, but it will guarantee that they should not be excessive.

[4:00]

Governments should always be asking themselves when any new program comes along: can we afford it? There are pressures on government every day to instigate new programs, to put this program in and to give us a million dollars here and ten million dollars there. The pressures are on every day, but governments have to learn to say no. Governments have to learn to say: can we afford it, and can the taxpayers afford it? Do we want what has happened with our federal government? That's a problem that has been growing for over 20 years, so it cuts across all party lines. Do we ever want to reach a state here where 40 cents of every dollar we take from the taxpayers goes to service debt? That's exactly what has happened to this country. Nearly 40 cents of every dollar that you and I send to Ottawa goes to service debt  — ot to retire debt, but just to pay the interest on it. By this June it will be at $400 billion and growing by $30 billion a year, and literally nothing is being done to get it under control.

We don't want to ever reach a situation like Ontario is going to reach under their new administration. Ontario is going to reach it very quickly with deficits this year of $8 billion and next year maybe $15 billion. We're talking billions. I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, it will never happen under a Social Credit government, because we are responsible to the people who pay the bills in this province.

I urge everyone to support this bill because it's good legislation. I challenge the NDP to stand up in this House and vote against it and then tell the taxpayers where the money is going to come from.

MR. REYNOLDS: I hadn't planned to speak this afternoon, but there are probably two good reasons why I should. Some of the comments made by members on the other side.... It's interesting that on a bill this important, they seem to have run out of speakers. Secondly, my five-and-a-half-year-old son is at home; he's got chicken pox, and I know he's watching. He wants to know what his father is doing in Victoria. Christopher is sitting at home, and he sees Uncle Walter sitting next to me. He will know we're working hard. I want to give him a little education about socialism and what it means to British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to say a few things, I also want to congratulate you on your election as Deputy Chairman. You have served a number of parliaments in this province very well, and I know that in this very tough and fighting one that we're having right now, you will serve extremely well.

The Leader of the Opposition — and I want to quote him — said that this bill.... I'll give the name of the bill for people watching: Bill 82, the Compensation Fairness Act, and it is a fairness act. The Leader of the Opposition says that it's unfair, it's going to bring labour unrest, it's going to mean lost business to British Columbia, it's going to hurt women — he's throwing everything in; he's not missing a thing — and it's a poke in the eye to the labour people. The Leader of the Opposition says: "It's not my way; it's not the British Columbia way." He said: "As Premier, I will not tolerate this bill." Mr. Speaker: ho, ho, ho — him as Premier.

There was another leader of the NDP; his name was Dave Barrett. In 1983 he was saying: "When I'm Premier I'll give all the civil servants a raise in pay." He lost that election, and he lost it big, because the people of British Columbia respected the fact that the Social Credit government runs a responsible government and treats their civil servants fairly. They also know that when things are tough, we act and we're not afraid to act. We're not afraid to act right across the board, including.... The members there haven't said it. The Premier in his statement.... We're freezing members' salaries too, and I think that's a good idea. We're being tougher on ourselves than we are on the people who are working for us. That's how tough this government is.

During the debate on this bill and its fairness.... There's the member for Vancouver–Point Grey: the man who speaks against the troops on radio and in the newspaper but sits in this House and votes for them. That's the NDP, Mr. Speaker: hypocrites. They change from one side to the other. The New Democratic Party is full of that. They are so close to an election. They want to go outside and tell everybody they're against the war, but they came in here, and because it was successful and we won the war with all our United Nations' allies, they're voting for it now. It's unacceptable to the people of British Columbia, and it should be.

Talking about compensation fairness, let's listen to some of their speeches. They talk about the doctors, and they talk about the $25 million pension. Again, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey was in support of the pension on Rafe Mair's show. Now he's not in favour of it because his party's not in favour of it.

Some of their friends over there, some of their supporters.... Let's talk about the teachers' pension fund. Last year this government put $141 million into the teachers' pension fund — actually a little more than that. Our donation from the taxpayers of British Columbia.... We feel that the teachers need to be well treated. We've given them a good pension plan, and we donate to it. But they knocked the $25 million for doctors. What have you got against doctors, who work on the seniors in this province and who keep us all well? You don't want them to have a pension plan. You don't want to compare it. You want to play politics with it, because an election's on. That's what the NDPs all about, Mr. Speaker — playing politics during art election.

The Finance critic is sitting there. Let's quote him during this debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: A nice young man.

MR. REYNOLDS: A great fellow. He looks wonderful on television — and that's a compliment. He's one of the more intelligent members of that party. He

[ Page 11760 ]

says this legislation has more to do with politics than with the taxpayer's dollar. He says the bill is confrontational. He says there's no money for civil servants. That's not accurate. He says it's a desperate attempt to promote labour unrest.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I would say to that member, who is, I am sure, hoping that he'll be the Minister of Finance one day.... But I'm sure he won't be, because on this issue the people of British Columbia are seeing through the New Democrats. They've come to this House in this session.... We've got a bill that is necessary. We brought in the same kind of tough legislation when there was another recession in Canada, and it worked. This kind of legislation is making sure, Mr. Speaker... Our debt servicing in the province is only 3.3 cents per capita. That's the lowest in Canada, and that's because this government has brought in tough legislation like this bill when it has been necessary for all British Columbians. That's why British Columbia leads Canada in the way the province is run.

In Ontario, just so you can understand, their debt servicing is 10 cents per capita, and they're estimating that next year it will be 20 cents per capita. That's under the new socialist government of Ontario. Ottawa is 36 to 38 cents.

The members smile. I know that the NDP haven't been in power for a long time in Ontario. But there were Liberals — they were pretty close to you guys. The Liberals were building up deficits. When there was a good Conservative government running Ontario, they balanced budgets like we do here in British Columbia.

The people of British Columbia know that this is a good government, and when they watch us on television and hear the debate from the other side.... It's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that they don't really want to talk about this bill. They want to vote against it so they can tell their labour friends they didn't support it, but they don't really want to do much about it.

Jobs. This province created more jobs last year than any other province in Canada. In fact, half of all the jobs created in Canada were created right here in British Columbia. That's because of the tough legislation that this government brings in when it's necessary.

This bill is extremely necessary at this time, because there is a recession in Canada. It hasn't hit British Columbia as hard as all the other areas of Canada because of the good government Social Credit presents in this province. Even one of the members who's retiring is applauding that. He knows that we've got good government; that's why his pension is good. That's why he's going to live a graceful life in retirement in a wonderful province — because we've had good government in this province under this government and under the government before it.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: The Finance critic says: "What are you running for?" I'm running to get re-elected in West Vancouver–Capilano. I can't wait to get onto the hustings and talk about all these issues against opponents in that riding and in other ridings in the province also. It's going to be a real race, and when it's all over I'll look forward to sitting on this side again, making a very similar speech to what we're talking about — a good, tough government that runs a good province.

I won't see all of you over there. I'll miss the member out in Coquitlam — or Port Moody; whatever. I served in the House of Commons with him. He's been a great servant not only to British Columbia but to Canada, and I wish him well in his retirement. He's been through a lot of these debates. Unfortunately, he'll have only enjoyed the opposition side all his life, but I can tell you from being on both sides that it is very enjoyable to be on that side because you can say things like we hear from you members now. You don't have the responsibility of running the government and being tough when you have to be tough.

That's one thing about this bill, Mr. Speaker: it's not politics. It's the facts of life. The inflation in this country, the recession in this country created by a federal government gone wild, will not be put up with by the government of this province. We're going to be responsible and will make sure that all the civil servants in this province are responsible also.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are all their speeches, John?

MR. REYNOLDS: Where are all the speeches from the other side? It's just shocking on a bill like this. You should all read it, it's so good. Normally you'd be up filibustering and putting amendments in. "No, let's get out of here; let's get the election on. We want to get out of here; we don't want to talk about anything worthwhile."

What they're afraid of, Mr. Speaker, is letting the people out there see exactly what they think and exactly what they say on television. They get the makeup on, they come and sit down in their new suits.... I've never seen so many. One member, it's the first suit I've ever seen him in. They're looking wonderful.

It's a say-nothing opposition. They used to be say-everything, say-anything, but now they're the say-nothing opposition. Put on your tie. Put in the puff. I can't believe it: an NDPer with a silk puff in the pocket. It's new. It's exciting. It won’t sell out there in television land. It won't sell out on the hustings.

This is a good bill for British Columbia. It will keep our civil service and the finances under control. Under our great new Minister of Finance, it will keep the budget under control. I can't wait to get this bill through and get out there on the hustings and talk to the people about the facts of life.

[ Page 11761 ]

HON. MR. SERWA: It's a real pleasure to stand up in the House today and speak to the philosophy and principles of Bill 82, the Compensation Fairness Act. It was a stroke of genius on the part of the Premier to call the House in and to fulfil his promise with respect to television cameras.

When I look across the House to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, when they are all here at the one time for question period, it's like looking at each individual collectively working together to play Mr. and Ms. Dressup. That's what they look like.

I wonder what they're opposed to. The commonsense proposition of fairness? Is that what you're opposed to over there? Do you have difficulty with the concept of fairness? Or is it that so many of you come from the public service and are going to go back? Is your perspective in question? Is it unfair to be concerned about the ability of the taxpayer to pay? Is that unreasonable? Is that unrealistic? It was expected that you would be opposed, and you certainly have fulfilled those expectations. Again, I ask for the people of British Columbia, opposed to what? Opposed to fairness? Opposed to the ability of the taxpayer to pay? Wake up and smell the roses.

I know from asking a question the other day that virtually none of you on the opposite side of the House has ever created a business or hired more than 10 or 15 employees. As a matter of fact, there was only one member on that side. I don't expect you to have an in-depth knowledge of economics and what makes things happen.

[4:15]

The people of British Columbia are really very important. You fail to recognize that. What would happen with you in control? For an example, I'll quote federal figures. The federal debt now is approximately $400 billion. What would it have been if the NDP socialists had been in the federal government? That's about $20,000 for every man, woman and child in Canada. Mr. Speaker, 33 cents out of every federal revenue dollar is spent addressing interest on the debt. That is not responsible action, and that is precisely where you would have us go. Interest charges on the debt amount to over $3,000 each year for every man, woman and child in Canada. The $41.2 billion that Ottawa pays every year on interest charges alone is more than the combined budgets of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

In British Columbia the government debt is about $1,300 per person, the lowest of any jurisdiction in Canada. The Social Credit government has reduced direct government debt by almost $800 million over the past three years. Just four cents — not 34 cents and not more — out of every revenue dollar goes to service debt. That debt and the interest charges accrue from individuals living beyond their means.

Madam Brundfland in Our Common Future, enunciated a very important principle: the economy and the environment are integral. She recognized, as we all recognize — and Social Credit government certainly recognizes — that we are responsible for acting as stewards of our environment. We are also responsible for acting as stewards of our economy.

Is your particular position on this bill one that opposes fairness and the ability of the taxpayer to pay? Is that being responsible? I certainly think not. Who is being served from your particular perspective? Special interest and self-interest groups, your support groups and, in truth, yourselves.

Most of you have very limited experience in the world of economics. You have come from publicly funded positions, and you will go back to publicly funded positions. You are here in the House with leaves of absence from those publicly funded positions. I can understand your perspective. In fact, you will benefit yourselves with your particular perspective on what happens, but you are abdicating your responsibility to the very constituents who elected you. You are focusing solely on your support groups, special interest and single-interest groups, and that is the problem. You're not being objective or realistic; you're being subjective and just speaking for those special interest groups and self-interest groups which are a small portion of the population. In your constituencies you have abdicated your responsibility to the constituents that elected you.

When I stood up I spoke about the members playing Mr. Dressup. It's important I address this in perspective of the philosophies and the principle of the bill, because perspective is an important element when we enunciate philosophy.

I'm looking at a charade. I'm looking at a façade. I've got to know a number of you over the past four...

Interjection.

HON. MR. SERWA: Well, you're rather sparse and barren in numbers. I wasn't referring to that — not at the moment. I certainly wouldn't do that.

I'm saying that over the past four and a half years I've gotten to know you as members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. But I see a dramatic change. What principles do you stand for? What do you stand for? You've gone out and bought a lot of new clothing. Your leader has bought whatever Elizabeth Arden recommends for his forehead. You’re purveying a charade. You're trying to fool the people of the province of British Columbia. That's your perspective, and that's how it impacts on your debate on this bill. That concerns me, and rightly so. I believe that each and every individual in the province can see through that.

I'd like to just address a slight analogy that is perhaps representative of what I believe would happen with you in government. The story is about a small village that happened to be a little bit on both sides of a very small stream. The economy was quite strong in that little village, and so the hard-working people of the village decided to build a bridge across the little stream, and to unite and make it easier to go back and forth. So they built that bridge, and because it was a nice bridge and they were proud of it, they hired somebody to look after it. That was a good

[ Page 11762 ]

idea; it needed painting, and it needed maintenance, and they'd worked hard to build that bridge.

But some of the NDP socialists got into the play. They decided that having a caretaker for the bridge wasn't adequate, Mr. Speaker. So they hired a foreman to look after the maintenance man on that bridge, and when they had the foreman. They had to hire a superintendent, and naturally they had to hire a paymaster to pay all of these people. Then they had to hire a treasurer to look after the paymaster.

It was a small village, and they were friends. The burden got too heavy for the village, and then the socialist power-seekers knew they were confronted with a difficult decision. What to do? The economy wasn't so good. The people were complaining and were very concerned. So they pooled their resources, got their heads together, and you know what they did? You bet. They fired the maintenance worker. Everybody else was secure.

That's the problem. We've got a strong, buoyant economy in the province of British Columbia. This government has worked very hard to maintain that economy, and with the spinoff from that economy we can provide the best possible standards of health care in the Dominion of Canada. We can provide the care and the social services. We can provide outstanding services in public education and in advanced education, and economic incentives so that we have jobs for people.

Yes, we have lots of friends in the province of British Columbia. As a matter of fact, all of the people in the province are our friends.

This government is charged with the responsibility of acting as stewards of the environment, and we're doing that. This government is also charged with the responsibility of acting as stewards of our economy. They're tied together. They're integral, my friends. That's why I support the philosophy and principles of Bill 82.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm tempted to say, Mr. Speaker, that I went to a hockey game with the Minister of Environment last night, we had a good time, and I didn't even have tell him what inning it was.

It's been said many times that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That was never more applicable than in the case of this government and this legislation. Bill 82 is a serious mistake on all counts. In the short run it will hurt morale in the public service, and it will further undermine the quality of that public service. It will make it impossible to achieve greater equity in wages and in salaries. It will harm the collective bargaining process, and it will adversely affect local economies. In the long run, Mr. Speaker, it will be self-defeating. Creating frustration, resentment and anger for tens of thousands of hard-working people in this province is not only wrong in principle, it is counterproductive. Time and again it has been demonstrated that people compelled to work for what they perceive to be substandard wages or salaries just aren't as productive as people who have voluntarily accepted their wage or salary level. That is why many — in fact, most — enlightened employers accept collective bargaining. They recognize that negotiated agreements lead to better morale and improved productivity. You just don't get it any other way.

This government has already done immense harm to public services in this province. It’s shortsighted and mistaken policies have left our health services in disarray. At every level our education system is in trouble; local infrastructures have deteriorated; environmental protection and improvement has been sacrificed.

My party has often been attacked as advocating excessive government intervention in the economy. The reality is, however, that this government has repeatedly initiated unwise intervention in the economy. They just can't resist meddling where wage negotiations are concerned. In spite of all the evidence that economic realities provide a collective bargaining balance, this government persists in trying to force its will on the parties involved. It has never worked well, and it won't work well this time.

No individual commissioner, however well qualified, can possibly understand the factors present in various sets of negotiations. It's not surprising therefore that what ends up happening is the arbitrary imposition of fixed percentages. This not only leads to unfairness and creates frustrations, it also undermines attempts to create greater equity between men's and women's wages and salaries. You just don't make any progress in this vitally important area when percentage ceilings are applied.

Under this government we have experienced a loss of highly skilled people because in any occupation, trade or profession, if the wages and conditions fall too far behind, people go elsewhere, either to other industries or to other places. British Columbia under Social Credit has been a happy hunting-ground for U.S. recruiters of teachers and health care professionals. One of the mottoes of this government might well be: we'll teach them and we'll train them, then you can have them. That's just one of the many ways this government has undermined health care and education in British Columbia.

It's true the government does face some economic problems. A series of bad deals like northeast coal and the Expo land deal haven't made those economic problems any better. None of us would pretend that there are any magic solutions; there are no magic solutions.

But I want to suggest to the government one novel approach to tackling our economic problems — one they've never tried and one they've possibly never considered. It's this: try working with the people who provide our public services. Try working with teachers, nurses, health care workers and other public sector workers. Try cooperation instead of confrontation. Consider the possibility — as foreign to your thinking as it may be — that the thousands of women and men working in the public sector actually care about the quality of services they are delivering and actually feel a deep concern about the well-being of our education system, our health care system and

[ Page 11763 ]

all of the other services upon which we depend. Talk to the workers involved in delivering our important public services. Our delivery systems are not efficient. They can show you the inefficiencies. Things are only made worse by politically motivated decisions with respect to the provision of new or expanded facilities. Improve things the hard way: work at it.

Stop throwing money wherever you think there may be votes. Mr. Speaker, we've seen countless examples in the last few years — and increasingly now out of the Regional and Economic Development ministry — of throwing money to attempt to buy an election, choosing to spend the public's money in ways that are profligate and excessive, choosing to spend money to help friends and insiders and to gain that money by taking it away from the people who actually work for the public. Try getting your priorities straight. Avoid the double standards; have one standard. If you won't — because you haven't, and I don't expect you will — turn over the responsibility of government to someone who will.

[4:30]

The simplistic answers so dear to Social Credit haven't worked in the past, and they won't work now or in the future. There are serious and complex problems that aren't simply solved by a gimmicky announcement that provides the Premier or a cabinet minister with a 30-second bite.

The people of this province have seen the show too often before. They now want a slogging approach to the problems. They want governments at all levels to sit down and try to find solutions with the people who are trying to make things work. This legislation does not provide solutions. It will compound the problems, and we don't need that.

I urge you to drop the legislation. Stop your attack on public services. Stop your war on the people who work for the public. We still have time. Sit down in good faith with the women and the men who are working for all of us, and try to listen.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It is my pleasure to rise in closing debate on Bill 82. This bill is about leadership. It's easier to run away from problems than to face them head-on. It's always easier to raise taxes — to dip into what seems to be that deep, endless well in order to solve problems than to face them head-on. It would be much easier to raise taxes, to borrow money from around the world — such as is happening in Ontario — than to have to stand here in this Legislature and bring in the tough legislation that is required for these times. It takes leadership.

There was a lot of talk about an election during this particular debate. When the next election comes — as it will come — it will be framed around several things. It will be framed around the economy and who is best able to look after the economy of the province of British Columbia. It will be framed around who is best able to negotiate native land claims — someone who wants to do it in a way that's fair and affordable and permanent or someone who wants to lay $2 billion on the table before they've ever sniffed the inside of the cabinet office.

There really are choices that we're going to have to make. Social Credit is about people. I hear these people over here talking about Social Credit and Social Credit not being about people. I'm going to read you a few items from the general fund expenditure for the last quarter. I want to talk about people programs for just a minute, Mr. Speaker.

The Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology's expenditure of $813 million was up $88 million, or 12.1 percent, from the same period last year, due to higher contributions to universities and colleges. And they tell us we don't look after education.

The Ministry of Education's expenditure of $2.199 billion was up $209 million, or 10.5 percent, from the same period last year, mainly because of higher provincial contributions to school districts under the new block-funding arrangements. We look after education. We've looked after education in this province ever since 1952, and we're going to continue to look after education.

The Ministry of Health had expenditures of $3.502 billion — and remember there are three million people in this province to pay for it — and they have increased by $381 million, or 12.2 percent, from the first nine months of last year. This is a result of increased contributions to hospitals and higher spending on the Medical Services Plan and Pharmacare for the aged.

We're looking after people in British Columbia. This has always been a government of the people, not of special interest groups. We've been a government of the people; we always have been and we always will be.

The Ministry of Social Services and Housing had expenditures of $1.273 billion. Those expenditures are up $127 million, or 11 percent, from the same period last year. The increase reflects higher expenditures for income assistance programs, and it goes on and on. I want to tell you that we're going to continue.

This bill is about two things....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps if the member speaking would address the Chair, the members who are interrupting the member speaking would be somewhat restrained. That's the normal procedure in this House. Would the minister please continue.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Thank you for drawing my attention to that. That's very kind of you.

This bill, the Compensation Fairness Act, Bill 82, is about two things. The first is about saving the jobs of public sector employees — the people who teach our children, the people who care for the sick of our province and the people who run the support ser-

[ Page 11764 ]

vices and run all aspects of government, just to name a few.

This bill accomplishes that goal by keeping public sector wage settlements from pricing themselves out of the market. The hon. second member for Vancouver East, my critic, took great care yesterday in reading from the most recent "Industrial Relations Bulletin" of the B.C. Business Council, dated March 5, 1991. The gentleman chose a particular point in time to suit his particular position. Other points in time on the same graph produce an entirely different conclusion. If he had turned the page over to the reverse side, his argument would have been immediately struck down. I'm going to do that. I'm going to read from that, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to tell you about wage increases for the first two contract years compounded January 1, 1990, to February 28, 1991. Then we're going to compare the private sector and the public sector on that chart.

In year one, the private sector increases were 5.5 percent. In the same period, the public sector increases were 7.7 percent. In year two, the private sector increases were 5.4 percent. In the same year, the public sector increase was 7 percent. After two years, the private sector increase was 11.3 percent and the public sector averaged a whopping 15.2 percent. The arrows are going in the wrong direction.

The Leader of the Opposition was telling us.... This new fiscal conservative over there on the other side of the House who wants to be Premier of the province of British Columbia was telling us about the waste of government office space. I looked around and tried to put a finger on some of the current numbers. My hon. colleague the Minister of Government Management Services is looking into that.

I also found some interesting increases that occurred while the NDP were in power during those 1,200 days and 1,200 nights. During those 1,200 days, the increase in office space rented by that NDP government amounted to 278 percent in just 3.5 years. The increase in cost per square foot to government was 207 percent. The increase in total cost of government office space in Victoria was 332 percent. They have the gall to talk about vacant office space.

They tell us now that 1972 to 1975 is no longer relevant, and that this bunch is now fiscal conservatives. They are friends of the business people. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, any business person who would believe the NDP is a friend of theirs would be akin to a chicken going over to Colonel Sanders and looking for aid and succour. There's no difference.

The people of British Columbia have some of the hardest-working and most efficient public sector employees in the country. This bill elevates and enshrines the job security of those people in the public sector. It's good for women....

Where has the good doctor gone? He needs to look after one of the members who is sitting on the wrong seat in the front bench here. Where's the good doctor?

This bill is good for women, as the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs has stated, by sending a message that employment and jobs are a priority of this government. Women employed in the public sector can continue to go to work with the assurance that they will have a job tomorrow. Unlike the hon. member for New Westminster would have this House believe, pay equity programs are not jeopardized in any way. Stop fearmongering. It doesn't become you, hon. members. The hon. member waxed eloquent about fundamental rights yesterday when she talked about this bill. Unfortunately, in typical socialist fashion, she accords those rights only to one side of the discussion. There are two sides to this coin.

Hon. member, let me tell you something. I speak not just for the government side of the House but for millions of British Columbians. You know, the taxpayers have rights too. The people who pay our bills, the people who pay the bills of the public sector, the people in small business and the people in large business have rights. It's not just governments that have rights. It's not just people who work for government who have rights. That's the second purpose of this bill: to protect the pay envelopes of the taxpayers who must fund all public sector wage settlements.

Social Credit, once again, is the only voice the taxpaying public has in this province. They don't have a voice with the NDP; it just does not exist. If the NDP had their way, they would use Ontario as a model. The Leader of the Opposition the other evening.... I watched him on television when he was with the opposition House Leader; they were having a roast. Mr. Bob Rae, the new Premier of Ontario, and the House Leader were playing and singing: "Ain't Misbehavin." You just wait. Two or three years from now when the people of Ontario go back to the polls, you'll see whether or not they were misbehaving. They are about ready to throw them out right now, I can tell you that.

[4:45]

As an alternative to Bill 82, what would the first member for Vancouver Centre offer the province of British Columbia? I'll tell you what he'd offer. He'd offer a deficit that is projected as close to $15 billion in the province of Ontario, because Ontario is his role model. He said it that night on television. It is a system that will penalize by 8 percent those who are trying to achieve great things in life — university students — as the Minister of Advanced Education stated today in the House.

The government of Ontario is passing on the cost of this huge deficit and the cost of servicing that debt to the students of the province of Ontario. Is that looking after people? That's not the way we look after people in Social Credit.

Rent controls — controls that have put people out of work even before they've passed the law.... Some of these people who voted for Mr. Rae — this is your role model; this is what you want here in British Columbia — are now getting a message from Mr. Rae.

Here is an article that was clipped from the Toronto Sun in January 1991. It says: "Thank you, Mr. Rae. Your proposed rent control law may have saved me $25 per month in rent. Unfortunately, as a direct result of act one, I just lost my job." It is signed by a

[ Page 11765 ]

group of people — former employees, workers, little people — the kind of people who pay your bills, who pay the taxes that you're laughing about, hon. member. They're the kind of people that you don't give a whit about.

You think it's funny for people to lose their jobs. I don't think it's funny at all, not for a moment. These are former employees of Ram Restoration Inc. — seven of the first new victims of the new NDP government. They paid for this ad and put it in the paper. Shame on the Premier of Ontario.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Might I ask the minister to address the Chair, rather than the members on the other side of the House, and to perhaps be somewhat relevant in completing second reading of this debate.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No government has any money of its own. Our finance comes from the taxpayers of British Columbia. It comes from the little people, from the big people, from small corporations and from big corporations. They fund everyone who is in the public sector. These people do not have the money to do this anymore. That eastern-fed recession that's been forced in from Ontario and from Ottawa is sapping the ability of these people to pay. Those taxpayers have entrusted us with responsible management, and Social Credit has performed better than any jurisdiction in Canada and will continue to perform better.

Since 1952, with the exception of those 1,200 dark days and nights, good Social Credit fiscal management is what has made British Columbia the best province in Canada — and the NDP want to make it just like Ontario. Social Credit manages the public money with an eye on the future.

Right now we see very strained times. Because of the economic situation, the taxpayers are beginning to see their purchasing powers decline. It is the responsibility of any responsible government to see that the burden of that situation is distributed fairly among all sectors of the economy. Fair is allowing the public sector to earn as much as the private sector taxpayers, who are asked to finance their labour.... That's fairness, that's equity and that's what this bill is all about.

The government is not singling out the public sector, as my hon. friend from North Island tried to suggest. The public sector has nothing to complain about under Social Credit. They have fared well over the past four years. They are not second-class citizens, nor do we ever want them to be second-class citizens, as the hon. member for New Westminster said — not by any stretch of the imagination. The government has increased spending for health care, education and social services, and we stand proud to defend that record any day of the week. We will defend it during an election, and we will win. We've got news for you: don't hold your breath to get on this side of the House.

This bill is fair, it's fair to the public sector employees. It's fair to public sector managers. Above all, it's fair to the taxpayers of British Columbia. That's what it's all about — fairness. The opposition is fond of calling for an election when the issues are out of the minds of the people of this province, and when those issues finally get out there and are discussed as we go from community to community....

Fairness versus special interest groups, sound fiscal management versus the fiscal disaster of the NDP, have and will bring victory to Social Credit in British Columbia. We've done it before, Mr. Premier and Mr. Speaker, and we're going to do it again.

The real and the only choice the voters will be asked to make is the choice between Social Credit free enterprise and NDP socialism; between opportunity, fairness for all and special interest to none, and NDP socialism — socialism that is being kicked out all over the world and in every corner of the country. The choice is between socialist rhetoric and Socred accomplishments. Those are going to be the issues that we'll talk about in the next election.

My friend from North Island said that those who fail to learn from history are condemned by history. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that he made that quote. I began these closing notes by talking about the vision that Social Credit has for British Columbia, and I'd like to go back just a little bit in time to talk about a vision — back some 215 years, to be exact, to a British professor, a man by the name of Dr. Alexander Tyler. Dr. Tyler was a man of his time in 1775, and he is a man of our time today. I want you to listen to this, because you might learn something. If you want to learn something from history, hon. members, you may learn. I doubt it, but you may learn. Dr. Tyler said:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government, it can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy and is always followed by dictatorship.

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence — and I want you to listen to this — "from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from great courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency and from dependency back again to bondage."

I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker: just how far down that road does the NDP want us to go in the province of British Columbia?

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Oh, my friend, when you owe everything to the government.... As Edmund Burke said, any government that is big enough to give you anything that you want is large enough to take away everything that you have. Don't ever kid yourself.

[ Page 11766 ]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will not stand by and see the best province in Canada — the finest place to live in the world, the best place to invest in all of North America — travel down the road that Dr. Tyler talked about.

It's my extreme pleasure to move second reading of Bill 82, the Compensation Fairness Act.

[5:00]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 36

NAYS — 20

Bill 82, Compensation Fairness 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.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 81.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
APPROVAL ACT

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's with a great deal of pride and pleasure that I rise to move second reading on Bill 81.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, is the first of its kind in Canada, and it's another step in the process which we began last summer to ensure that the voice of the people is heard with respect to issues that affect them. I'm particularly proud that we're able to institute this process as it applies to constitutional change.

I say that because I was reminded of this paper called The Provincial, which is a newspaper put forth by the BCGEU. In it I read an article about the Gulf War and the opposition to the participation of Canada in that unfortunate event in the Gulf. I can recall the NDP took a similar position in opposition, and it was certainly publicized across the country where the NDP stood with respect to the activities of Canadian soldiers in that Gulf War. I recall that immediately after — and certainly during as well — there was an expression of pride by Canadians in those soldiers who went to the Gulf to fight for peace and to fight for the putting down of a dictator and a regime that was causing great damage and hardship to people in Kuwait and elsewhere. Canadians stood proud in support of those soldiers.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I was disappointed that the New Democratic Party took the position they did, and I'm sure I was not alone. This article in the BCGEU newspaper reminded me of that. I found it to be somewhat shameful. Therefore I find it all the more important that we have people involved in this constitutional change that will hopefully bring greater pride to the country as we develop in a more effective way the structure and the operation of the country.

I recall, too, that it's more than three years now since we first met to discuss bringing Quebec into Confederation. When I attended the first meeting in August, 1986, the five points that Quebec wanted addressed were basically decided upon. I went to the meeting at Meech Lake, and it was a very difficult meeting in the spring of 1987. After the meeting at Meech Lake in 1987, where we finally came together unanimously in support of that constitutional change, I brought the agreement back to the House. Those members across the way — certainly to their credit and I don't criticize them for this — along with members on this side of the House stood in support of the agreement that had been reached at Meech Lake to bring Quebec into Confederation. I recall, too, that there were many editorials in the newspapers and programs on television and radio supporting and complimenting the fact that all of the first ministers in the country had been able to come together and accomplish this change.

There was support from those members across the way as there was from the members here. As time went on and various activities unfortunately occurred in Quebec, opposition started to grow. Certainly people were speaking out against the Meech Lake accord and on what we were wanting to see accomplished in that process. But as time went on, it became very obvious too that people were as much opposed to the process as to any of the five points contained in the accord. We said then that we would seek to bring a change into that process that would give British Columbians a say in future constitutional change.

Last year we brought to the House a bill that would allow for referendum on any number of issues; again, that's been well received. People do want to participate in helping decide what might be done provincially by their government. As it is they want to participate in what a municipal council or school board would possibly like to see done.

The process is a good part of democracy. It goes directly to the individual and says: "You can participate. There is a mechanism. We've made it available

[ Page 11767 ]

to you." That was a first in Canada. This again is a first in Canada. We're leading the way, and it's being noticed across the land that we've taken this step to involve the people in future constitutional change.

The constitution is our supreme law. It is the framework within which all other laws are made. And like it or not, as a nation we are entering into a period in our history when the fundamental framework is under scrutiny. The status quo is unacceptable to a growing number of Canadians. I'm not talking just about Quebec; I'm talking about people in British Columbia and throughout the west. They've expressed their frustration with the current system for many years.

It's difficult to predict the end result of this re-examination of Canadian federalism. I'm sure I speak for everyone in the House when I say that we're somewhat disturbed when we hear statements from Ottawa suggesting that they could reach agreement unilaterally with Quebec as to what that province might or can do that isn't necessarily available to other provinces. That is not acceptable to British Columbians. Any constitutional change or reordering of responsibilities in this country between the federal government and the provinces must involve all the players, all the provinces and, more importantly still, all the people of the country. It's my hope that other provinces will follow suit, that they will see the merits of such legislation as we have here today, and that they too will introduce a Bill 81 and give that opportunity to their citizens.

The country is certainly suffering — as we've already heard said so many times in the House — from a number of economic and fiscal problems. The pressure of this will become more evident to all of us as time goes on. I realize there are those who still say that it doesn't matter, that we can continue as we have been. There are those — and I guess I can include the members opposite, the NDP — who believe in centralization and more power for Ottawa, who believe that somehow that will keep the country together.

I don't believe that. I believe there needs to be that process of devolution, where we reconsider what governments do in order to eliminate the duplication and waste, so that we don't do things two or three times and see, as a result, the growth of government and the enormous cost that comes therewith.

I know there will be those in the NDP.... I can see the smile on the face of the member for Victoria. He's of the view that it doesn't matter how much money we spend; we can simply go on forever doing whatever government wishes. You can either turn to the taxpayers for more money, or you can go deeper and deeper into debt.

I suppose that that was the view of the governing people in Argentina at the beginning of the century, when that country had a booming economy — one of the leading economies in the world. They did what we've heard talked about during the last number of days by the NDP opposite. They went deeper and deeper into debt and created the sorts of deficits that we've seen nationally and that we see building at a horrendous rate today in Ontario.

The country needs fundamental change. We must address all of these problems, and what better way to do so than through the constitution and the makings of Confederation? That opportunity is available to us. The years ahead will be exciting ones. I and all members on this side of the House will want to participate in that process, and we would like you members opposite to participate as well by contributing good suggestions for change — perhaps then being a positive part of that building — as opposed to opposing. Similarly, we want all the people throughout this province to be involved in that process. This legislation affords them that opportunity.

There's no such legislation anywhere in Canada yet. We know it exists in Australia. It's time Canada took its place to bring the people into the process as well. As usual, British Columbia is again the number one province, the leading province.

I regret very much that the Leader of the Opposition is again out of the House, because I'd like to see him participate in this debate, to be the first to respond and stand up in support of this legislation. I wish the Leader of the Opposition were here, but business must go on. We've had to present this bill, and I'm sure that somebody opposite might be assigned to respond and to express support for this move as well. This is good legislation. I am moving second reading of this bill.

I would suggest that all Members of the Legislative Assembly support it in order to give people everywhere in this province an opportunity to be a part of bringing about the positive change we must seek for Canada. This bill ensures that the shape of change is in the hands of those most affected by such change, the people. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

[5:15]

MR. GABELMANN: First of all, may I say on behalf of the official opposition that we will vote for this legislation. We support the idea of referendums on issues of this consequence to this country. Therefore, as I said, we will support the legislation. That does not mean that we agree with what the Premier had to say. Nor do we agree very much with the process the Premier has outlined. This step is the last step in a much longer process, not the first step.

I wanted a minute to review some of the issues involved, but let me say first of all that what the Premier and his government are proposing with this legislation is more of the same deal-making behind closed doors, and once the deal is reached, the people get to vote yes or no.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I've read the legislation.

As with so many other issues in this province, we disagree with the approach the government takes. We believe in public participation before the decisions are made, not after. This bill should have included a

[ Page 11768 ]

requirement that an all-party legislative committee travel this province and seek the opinions of British Columbians about their views on constitutional change.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Normally I'm not inclined to respond to heckling, particularly from the Premier. But the Premier describes that proposal of ours as "NDP boondoggling." He describes the proposal to seek the public opinion from British Columbians about one of the more important issues in this country — our constitution — as a boondoggle. Seeking public opinion, discovering what people want in their constitution, is somehow treated as an exercise or an effort or a desire on the part of opposition members to travel at public expense.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's what you do all the time.

Where's your boss?

MR. GABELMANN: Perhaps those of us who engage in parliamentary debate should adhere to the rule of common sense in debate, which is to not respond to heckling. But the heckling is of such consequence and so significant as to the mind-set of the government that it is important, I think, to spend a few minutes on it.

The Ontario government, to pick one, has a legislative committee now at work travelling the province to find out what the people think about what constitutional change they should bring. Is it any wonder why, three years ago when Meech Lake was being considered in this country, Manitoba was one of the provinces that hesitated, to put it mildly, about this question? Is it any wonder that the Legislature and government of Manitoba at that time were not keen about doing what we did here in this House, which was to consider a resolution without consultation with the public?

It's clear in the minds of Canadians coast to coast to coast that, in fact, Manitoba was ahead of all the rest of the parliamentarians at that time. Why? They had a legislative committee which travelled throughout Manitoba to find out what people wanted to hear, to find out what people were saying about the constitution. The Premier is proposing to repeat....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: It was a minority government, it was a Conservative Premier; there was a strong Liberal opposition and a significant NDP third-party presence at that time. One of the strengths, I guess, of that particular Legislature was that they recognized they couldn't simply govern the province of Manitoba arbitrarily, as the Premier would like to do here. They realized they had to seek public opinion, and they did. They were ahead of the rest of us when it came to making decisions about how to proceed on that constitutional question.

Since we've begun the constitutional amending process in this country, we've had one fiasco after another. I want briefly to go through it and say why I think we've had fiascos, but in order to talk about that I need to say what I think the fiascos were.

When the first constitutional discussions were initiated by former Primer Minister Trudeau, the discussions then too were Premier to Premier and intergovernmental minister to intergovernmental minister. That process led, without any public discussion other than the Prime Minister of the day telling Canadians what he thought the country should look like, to a situation where three men decided what the constitution would say in the kitchen of the conference centre in Ottawa. Three men, two of them still active in public life today in this country, decided what the constitution should say on some very important issues.

That behind-the-scenes decision made without consultation led to the fact that Quebec could not sign the constitution, could not be part of the constitution. So what happened? We got a change of government in Ottawa. We got Prime Minister Mulroney deciding to embark on the so-called "Quebec round," which is what led to the Meech Lake decision, not having learned a thing from the Trudeau failure of 1981.

This time, however, it wasn't three guys in a kitchen making a decision; it was 11 guys on a lakeshore making a decision in private, without public consultation, with no involvement of the Canadian people in what they were talking about. Canadians didn't know that this was the Quebec round, that this was an effort to get Quebec into the constitution. They didn't know that. Why? Because Canadians weren't involved in the process of trying to find out what the consensus would be in this country. There was no attempt at consensus-building. There was simply closed-door, behind-the-scenes deal-making, and the Premier was involved in that deal.

I don't mind saying that I supported that deal in this Legislature. It seemed to me the only choice we had. It was yes or no, and for me the answer ended up being yes, as it did for every single Social Credit member. They all supported Meech Lake. Most of my caucus supported Meech Lake. Many members on this side of the House did not, and they made arguments then which I didn't pay as much attention to as I do now. Those arguments had much to do — not exclusively — with the process of involving people in constitutional development, and they were right about that then.

Mr. Speaker, back to where we are today. We see, from this bill, the thinking of the government in respect to how we make the amendments to the constitution of Canada, which so clearly are required. How do we make those decisions? Let's first of all talk a little about what kind of decisions the Premier is going to make — if he still is Premier — behind closed doors, which he will then present to British Columbians, and the kind of deal he will have to,

[ Page 11769 ]

under this legislation, reach with other Premiers and the Prime Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: He won't be there to do it.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't think he'll be there to do it either, but he hopes to be. This legislation is an illustration of his thinking on the question.

On questions of division of power in this country, the Premier talked about the need and the desire to decentralize. This is from the most centralizing government this province has ever seen; it has taken services out of rural communities and centralized them into Vancouver and Victoria. Nonetheless, that's just a side issue. It doesn't ring true when the Premier talks about wanting to decentralize the country, because when he's in power, he wants to centralize power around him.

Mr. Speaker, we have difficult questions in this country. We have questions of division of power and questions about the relationship of one province to another. We have questions of the relationship of the province of Quebec to the rest of Canada and to each of the other provinces. These are difficult questions, and many other questions are involved. We have a fundamentally unresolved question related to native concerns in this country, and the list goes on and on. But the public isn't being asked by this legislation to talk about these concerns or to sort out in its mind what the various choices are. No, the public is simply being asked at the end of a private session — a private process — to say yes or no. That is not how you build constitutions, and that is not how you build countries.

The Premier had many things to say. He bragged about this being the first in the country, an opportunity for people to vote on the final resolution of the deal that he reaches. Because we're supporting that final approval of the deal, we're appealing to him to involve the people in the process leading to that new arrangement and not simply ask them to say yes or no to an arrangement that he and his male friends in a small room might reach.

HON. MR. FRASER: I am glad to take my place in debate today to support the passage of Bill 81, which I understand will pass because the opposition members will support it. It is nice to see unanimity in this place, and it does happen from time to time.

In contrast to my friend from North Island, I would like to put forward the fact that he now is suddenly believing in consultation with the people. I understand from a remark he made not that long ago.... He must have learned something from that time. He said: "One of the mistakes some of us may have made in years gone by is that we assumed we knew what to do and how to do it, and we would do it on our own without consultation." I'm glad to see that he has learned something, and I presume that the NDP over there has also learned something from that time.

There's no question about the fact that the constitution is important to us. There's no question that people want to get involved in it. There's no doubt about the fact that we're going through a fundamental change in this country that will see Canada a different country than it is today. There certainly are a lot of us — most of us, I suspect, on this side of the House — who believe that Canada should be preserved. There certainly are a lot of us on this side of the House who believe the country is worth fighting for. There certainly are a lot of us on this side of the House who believe that what is good for one province might be good for another, and we shouldn't be denied that access. There is certainly no doubt about the fact that none of us over here believe that unilateral deals between the federal government and one province or another make any sense unless the rest are involved in that giving or taking of powers from one authority to another.

[5:30]

The last thing we need, as the Premier has pointed out, is duplication between federal and provincial governments. Do we need two ministries of forests? Do we need two of this and three of that? The answer is no. Can we have a division of powers that makes sense? The answer is yes. Do we want to talk about Senate reform? The answer is yes. Are there things that we can work on? The answer is yes. We say: who has the answer? This side of the House says the people have the answer.

This is not going to be an all-party committee that will travel around to talk to little groups that will come to meetings from time to time. This will be a process that will allow anybody who wants to to make a contribution. Inviting special individuals to contribute is not a bad idea, but denying others is not a good idea, so we will not deny anybody the chance to have input into the constitutional changes they wish to see us implement.

Certainly, when you want to talk about Senate reform, with a province of three million people and six Senators, compared to New Brunswick with 11 Senators and 700,000 people, that makes no sense. We're not being properly represented. There's no question that it has to be addressed, because we need a better deal in the Senate for British Columbia's point of view. That is something we can fight for, definitely.

I was interested in the member talking about the Premier of Ontario, who as we know is NDP and who was elected to represent all the people of Ontario. He said, in a recent meeting when resolutions were passed, asking for things like double time for all overtime and that sort of thing: "What they want and what they get are two different things." I thought that was kind of.... How long has it been since that election? What an interesting change, that he would say that so soon after the election in Ontario. We shall see what they do.

Another few changes have come down in Ontario that you might want to listen to — some changes in the Council of Ministers of Education, for example. Talking about unilateral change.... All the ministers across Canada spoke about a national evaluation system for students. It seemed to make sense. I think

[ Page 11770 ]

the students want to know how they are doing. The teachers might want to know how well they are doing. I'm sure the parents and spouses of students want to know how well the students are performing. And yet, all of a sudden, this national evaluation program, agreed to by all the provinces, has a missing province. Guess who? The province of Ontario. All of a sudden, without anybody really knowing about it, they opted out. I don't think that's what we want. What we want is input from everybody, which we're going to get. We want a country that's multicultural, not multinational. We want an opportunity for B.C. to participate. That's what we're going to get, and that is why I will be supporting this legislation.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I believe this debate is important for British Columbia and for Canada. I congratulate the government for finally giving us the opportunity to have this meaningful discussion in this House. I am a little saddened by the previous speaker, who chose to make an election speech; who chose to talk about other governments and other political parties and their record across Canada, instead of getting our own house in order.

When I say that this is an important debate and that the opposition Whip has already indicated that we will be supporting this bill.... I want to add my voice to his and to those other members of our caucus by asking the government to reconsider and to extend the process to involve more people. The Premier said that it was important when it came to the constitution for everyone in this province to have an opportunity to participate. But then in this bill, through lack of insight, the Premier and this government have limited the options for people's involvement.

As the previous speakers indicated, the only opportunity people have is a yes or no vote once the Premier, in closed negotiations with other provinces and with Ottawa, has defined the question. I cannot believe, with all we have gone through here in British Columbia and in Canada over these tumultuous days, that the Premier has not learned that the people want a say; that they care about Canada; that they care about this country very deeply and they want a say in what Canada becomes in the future.

The Premier says that we have difficult times in this country. I guess at that point I would disagree with him because I think that some of the difficulties, as he would describe them, are indeed opportunities. What we are hearing across this country is that people care so much about Canada and what we stand for that they won't be silent; that they very strongly want a say; that they care so much for the future of this country; that they want to be heard; that they want their voices to be taken into consideration when the first ministers go back for discussion.

The opposition Whip talked about the 11 men. I think there's a point that has to be made. Not only were 51 percent of the population — women — not represented; not only were their voices not heard in those rounds of constitutional talks. But when they went to those ministers — and, Mr. Premier, you were one of them — and said, "You've made a mistake; you haven't heard what we had to say; you haven't taken into consideration our view of Canada," we saw a spectacle that I hope we don't have to see again. We saw those 11 white men pat those women on the head, send them away and say: "We've taken what you've said into consideration. We disagree, and what we have decided is in your best interest. Trust us."

Well, the country rejected your view then, and the country and the province will reject your view again, should you have that opportunity, unless you go out and hear what these people have to say, hear what women's groups have to say about their vision, hear what native groups have to say about their vision, hear what the multicultural groups that make up this diverse country have to say about their view of Canada.

Only when that homework is done, when we truly have a consensus — not a political gain, not a resolution or a piece of legislation brought down on the dying days of a government — will governments truly understand that we as Canada can only exist if that consensus is built. If people have an opportunity to talk, to work out their differences, to say that we do have a common goal and a lot in common.... We see a lot in Canada that we want to fight for, and only when we see that will we be able to stay together as a strong nation. Only when those British Columbians and Canadians have an opportunity to define what we will be together will we have the kind of unity that we all hope for. It won't be when we have a bill from a government that has a yes or a no vote at the end.

So I want to make the appeal, along with my colleagues, that the Premier and the Socreds make a commitment to listen to the people, to make the effort, to build that consensus, rather than simply putting forward a yes or no vote after you, sir, have once again worked out a deal with the other Premiers across Canada.

MR. COUVELIER: I am delighted to stand at my place and support Bill 81. I am also a little bit confused, given the fact that we've already learned that the members opposite are also going to support the bill, as to why we persist in getting our spoken words on the record and consuming time which might otherwise be spent on more fruitful debates. In any event, given that it is the protocol that there is a yin and a yang, and every time you stand we have to stand and respond, I stand in my place exercising that privilege.

First of all, I'm struck by the spin that this debate has had with recent speakers. I gather that there's some sort of desire of the members opposite to travel the province and protract this essential discussion, which really is being settled rapidly elsewhere in the country. My friends, if you want British Columbia's voice to be heard in this kind of national debate, we

[ Page 11771 ]

are not going to have the time to do the kind of tour that I gather you are talking about.

This approach of tours, as the previous speakers have already illustrated, has been embarked upon by nearly every other government in the country. It's déjà vu. Can you think of nothing new or original for how to deal with this issue? Must you regurgitate all these traditional approaches without any sensitivity to the dynamics of the moment? Have you not heard about our minister in charge of our constitutional committee on the government side, with his proposal and request for papers to discuss options and proposals, and his offer to publish those papers and give them the widest possible distribution that can be arranged, so that all British Columbians will have an opportunity to interrelate and dialogue in that sense?

Surely you can't be arguing against the ethic of a referendum that every citizen would have a right to express his opinion on. Clearly that can't be something you oppose. So what we appear to be hung up on — and not hung up badly enough that you're going to vote against the bill — is this issue of a provincial tour. My perception, my friends, of how this debate is gathering momentum in other parts of the country.... As illustrated by the Premier's introductory remarks on this bill, the federal government has already indicated a desire to start a one-on-one dialogue with the province of Quebec. We're going to have to move fairly quickly on this issue.

I'm also intrigued with the idea that you want to embark on a tour when we've already had all this publicity surrounding the difficulties of the federal tour and the Spicer commission. If ever you needed a recipe for potential disaster, we see it exhibited with the performance of that tour for the purposes of broadening the discussion. There's nothing wrong with broadening the discussion, but I speak to the issue of the urgency of the matter. We must — and this government believes it must — put the power in the hands of the people with this legislative action, to ensure that they will have a right to express their view before it's too late.

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of further comments I'd like to make, but it's obvious to me now that I'm not going to have a chance to finish them before the clock ticks through to the obligatory closing hour. I'm wondering, therefore, if you would entertain a motion to adjourn the debate to the next sitting of the House.

Mr. Couvelier moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:44 p.m.