[ Page 11825 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Land Title Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 91). Hon. Mr. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 11825

Compensation Fairness Act (Bill 82). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Veitch) –– 11825

Ms. Smallwood

Ms. Marzari

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Clark

Ms. Edwards

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Lovick

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 1991.

HON. MR. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, this bill contains measures that will further the one-page conveyance document objective of the land titles registration system. Last year the Legislature passed bills that made it easier to transfer titles and to arrange for the mortgaging documents. This year the bill will talk about conveyancing documents, such as agreements for sale and leases. The bill contains a range of minor amendments that do not affect the legislation of 1990, but specifically this bill completes the progressive reforms of the Land Title Act that the House passed last year.

Bill 91 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.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee on Bill 82, Mr. Speaker.

COMPENSATION FAIRNESS ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 82; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yesterday, as we adjourned debate on Bill 82, this wonderful act that protects public employees in the province of British Columbia, there was some discussion surrounding the area of group homes, community care homes, small day care centres and things of this nature. It was not our intention ever to encompass these small units. As I said, the members opposite raised details about small day care centres, extended-care facilities, homes for the mentally disabled, etc. — some of which seemed to be covered in the definition section and some of which were not.

Firstly, I have indicated that if you are a public sector employer defined in any one of the acts within this definition, you would be covered by this legislation. That's what the legislation provides for.

Secondly, I have said that it is not the intention of this act to be an unnecessary burden to the small employer in the public sector. We recognize only too well that many valuable social services are provided by hundreds of well-meaning organizations which operate on marginal budgets and survive through the efforts of their dedicated staff.

Thirdly, the act contemplates the kind of example cited by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. One day care child subsidized by government is day care in a circumstance that would not appear to warrant inclusion in day care under this act. It is our intention in both 1(g) and (h) to include facilities that receive a majority of their funding from government only. Clearly all such questions would need to be examined on their merits, and the duties and powers of the commissioner have been drafted in such a way that section 5(1)(e) would permit the commissioner to determine who is or is not included. We will give guidance to the commissioner to exercise reasonable discretion in determining who is included or excluded from the definition — based on reasonableness. I would assume that the areas you were speaking of yesterday — the one day care, the small group homes and so forth — would not be included.

Finally, in answer to the second member for Vancouver East regarding the number of employers or contracts affected by this legislation, we have done some checking overnight. I indicated yesterday that we would anticipate numbers similar to those we saw in the Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act. Our best information is that there are approximately 711 public sector employers. Some of these employers have more than one agreement that they are responsible for. Therefore, there appear to be approximately 1,200 agreements involved.

I offer this as clarification to the members, as it was raised in committee yesterday. I hope it will be of assistance to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I just ask the question: in the minister's explanation, which I thought I listened to quite carefully, was there a proposal for an amendment to one of the sections?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, it's not necessary to amend the act; all we have to do is amend the guidelines or spell it out in regulations and so instruct the commissioner. That will be done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Fine, thank you.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would thank the minister for his introductory comments and attempt to clarify. I'd like to go a little bit further from where we left off last night about who is included. I have some concerns about the size of the bureaucracy you are setting up here to deal with these many separate, small contracts throughout the province.

In particular, arising from the issues of concern around community care facilities, with the number of group homes and community care facilities in each and every community in this province, I'm wondering.... The minister has already acknowledged that the commissioner will in some way aid adherence to this act. Could he indicate how big this bureaucracy

[ Page 11826 ]

is and how much it's going to be costing the taxpayers?

HON. MR. VEITCH: As I indicated yesterday, we anticipate similar numbers to those included in the Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act. That organization had eight employees; this organization will have eight employees — hardly a huge bureaucracy. As I mentioned this morning in my attempt to clarify who would be included and who would not be included, you will see that a lot less instruction will be required by the commissioner or the commissioner's staff to small day care centres, because, in fact, they will be excluded.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I was specifically concerned with group homes, not day cares. While it's clear that the point was made yesterday — and from the minister's response, I assume that the government will be amending the way it is treating day cares — I want to drive that point home for other facilities as well. When we're talking about group homes, in particular group homes for mentally and physically disabled — both youth and adults — in this province, we've seen the Minister of Social Services, along with the Minister of Health, acknowledge that there is a real problem in wage parity now, and that problem, Mr. Minister, is that the wages paid the people working in these group homes are so low that the turnover is exceptional. That has already been acknowledged by two ministries of this government, to the point where programs were put in place to try to deal with wage parity, to bring the wages up, with an attempt to keep the employees a little longer and add some stability to the care that those residents are receiving.

With the specific naming of the community care facilities as a target for this legislation, it seems to fly in the face of that reality. My concern is that we will see an increase in the turnover, a greater loss of stability for those homes. I'm wondering why the minister, with his legislation, would target groups like that and at the same time exclude the substantial contracts that the government issues for management services, as an example. It would seem to me that there is a big amount of money in the government's budget that you have chosen to exclude from this list, while instead targeting people that you yourself have already acknowledged are not making enough money to be able to provide the service they want to provide.

[10:15]

HON. MR. VEITCH: As I pointed out before, a lot of these small group homes that you were speaking of will simply not fall within the purview of this legislation in that they will be excluded by the commissioner, through determination of the guidelines or regulations. He has that flexibility.

We can all agree with you that there needs to be greater wage parity. There's no question about that. But I hardly think that this section has to deal with that, so perhaps we could move on to something else and you may wish to discuss it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, the Minister of Social Services and Housing has asked permission to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It's with a great deal of pleasure this morning that I welcome to the House Mr. Claude Bennett, the chairman of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, along with Peter Anderson, the general manager for the B.C. and Yukon region of the corporation. They're accompanied by Mr. Sam Travers, ADM responsible for housing within my ministry. I'd like the House to give them a good warm welcome.

MS. SMALLWOOD: So the minister has now said that day cares are likely to be excluded....

HON. MR. VEITCH: Small ones.

MS. SMALLWOOD: There are only small ones.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Okay, the minister waved his hand — they are excluded.

The minister has also said that community care facilities....

HON. MR. VEITCH: Small ones.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Most group homes are small. So maybe the minister can wave his hand again and they will be excluded.

I'll have to admit that I'm not particularly comforted. In reality, this government — collectively several ministers, under acts that are covered by this piece of legislation — have targeted groups.... When we're talking about areas that fall under social services — in particular group homes or day cares — the wages of those employees fall below the poverty line. I'm making the point again that the minister, through this legislation, has excluded the many contracts that this government makes for specialized services to the government, and those wages do not fall under the legislation. This legislation is not based on fairness or accountability. I would ask the minister to reconsider his target group. You are targeting employees who are paid below the poverty line — mostly women. Would you consider some accountability and fairness for those contracts that you as a government sign and that do not fall under any control or any public airing?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Some group homes are 100-percent-funded by the government of British Columbia. There's no question about that. We've said all along that this act has within it some very basic tenets of fairness and equity. If there are special circumstances that need to be addressed within any unit, they will be addressed by the commissioner.

[ Page 11827 ]

That applies to group homes, as to any other public employer. That is the answer to the member's question.

MS. MARZARI: It's worth referring to section 1 for a further definition of the minister’s thoughts on pay equity, since it is a major issue for this province, where women are earning 60 cents on the male dollar for work of equivalent value. But first I think it's worth commenting on the language "ability to pay" that the minister has used. It's a clever language, because it attempts to trap the opposition into a corner. The minister would suggest that the opposition would be wasteful in its expenditure of dollars; but the government, on the other hand, is not wasteful and therefore turning to the public's ability to pay helps keep us competitive.

There are a number of questions to be asked in this area, and section 1 seems to be the place to ask them. This whole business of ability to pay, of course, is so clever that sometimes it falls in on itself, and the minister might find himself meeting himself on the way down the road.

The ability to pay must be looked at in terms of the taxpayer's ability to pay. If it’s the minister's attempt to turn us into a low-wage economy here in British Columbia and make us competitive with Mexican workers, then I would suggest to him that the taxpayer's ability to pay will go down correspondingly. This seems to be what this legislation is about — at least on the surface.

Politically speaking, we know on this side of the House that this legislation has been set up basically to do some teacher-bashing during an election campaign. It is to that issue that we must address some comments.

The pay equity question. I've just spent an early-morning meeting today with the Hospital Employees' Union, the Health Sciences Association and representatives of the BCGEU and the BCTF. There is a growing concern among professions — many of them female-dominated; in fact, most of them — about pay equity.

This legislation — in section 1 or any section — doesn't really comment on the relationship of this legislation, which is intended to make us competitive with Mexico or to teacher-bash.... Nor does it make any reference to your already-announced program on closing the wage gap between men and women. I would ask the minister — as he was asked yesterday by my colleague from Vancouver East — whether or not the pot of dollars, that separate account which is intended to bring women's wages in line with men's wages in this province, remains as an entity separate and distinct from the total payroll budget. It is on this assumption that pay equity can proceed. If it is not kept separate, and if it is incorporated into the same account as the payroll budget pay equity — the closing of the gap — is not going to be technically possible. Mr. Minister, would you comment on that?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I really don't know what your special interest groups — the unions — instructed you to say this morning. But whatever it was and whoever you report to are just plain wrong.

I can tell you right now that British Columbia has the highest average weekly wage economy in all of Canada. This bill is designed to maintain that level and to help people who may be laid off for some reason or may be influenced — if I have to say it again — by an economy that is blowing our way from eastern Canada and by a recession that has sapped resources of the private sector that pays the wages of the public sector. This bill is designed to have everybody share in increases and share just a bit in the burden.

Now you want to get to pay equity. The government has set aside a $40 million package over four years. It's 1½ percent, 1½ percent, 1 percent and 1 percent. Twelve million dollars of that pay equity package has already been extended. That package is still there. So, hon. member, I believe that answers your question.

No, we're not trying to make our wages here the same as Mexico's. We are doing everything we possibly can to diversify and elevate the well-being of the people of British Columbia, as Social Credit governments have done decade after decade in this province and will continue to do. But we'll do it with fairness and with fiscal responsibility, and we're not going to be pushed into that mire of spending as is happening in Ontario, which seems to be your model at this particular time.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Minister, Ontario is in a mire because of a deficit that was left to them. It is my most serious concern that when we finally open the books in this province, we may find a deficit of as great a magnitude as Ontario's, despite the fact that we have one-third of the people. That's a concern.

It may also be true, Mr. Minister, as you cleverly manipulate your statistics, that we may well have the highest weekly wage in Canada. But I would suggest that the weekly wage is probably somewhere around minimum wage, and that the majority of the people earning minimum wage are women. They work without benefits and at the level of casual labour. They do not work full-time, and they have no security of tenure in any job they may take on. So talking about the highest weekly wage in Canada really draws a veil over the truth of the matter. Tackling it with a wage reduction plan at this point in our economy could well spell disaster and take us all into a downward spiral.

Mr. Minister, your predecessor and the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs have been talking to the extended public sector. I refer to the colleges, the universities and the justice institute. In talking to the extended public sector, your predecessor and the minister for women have been talking about extending the pay equity package to women in sectors other than the BCGEU — other than the inside workers here in Victoria. Mr. Minister, I'm assuming that you're telling the truth when you talk about a $40 million package for pay equity. I'm assuming that you've changed your mind from yesterday, when you

[ Page 11828 ]

suggested to my colleague from Vancouver East that you had a finite payroll package with a ceiling on it. You are talking now about the separate package for pay equity. Are you prepared at this point to fulfil the promises made by your predecessor and the minister for women that the pay equity package will be extended to other women in the workforce, such as those in community colleges and the universities?

[10:30]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member knows by this time, if they're addressing problems of another ministry, they should address that ministry in that minister's estimates or during a particular piece of legislation. I can tell you that we have a $40 million package, of which $12 million has already been extended.

If other ministers want other assistance for anything, it must be included in their budget requests. Those budget requests will come forward to Treasury Board, and they will be dealt with in the same way as any other request. I can't predict what other ministers will be doing. I can't predict what will be in their legislation or their budgets. You will have to ask those other ministers.

With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, the member's questioning does not fall within this section of the bill.

MS. MARZARI: The questioning does fall within this section of the bill. Pay equity, in fact, falls nowhere in the bill, so I'm looking for who's included and who's excluded. I want to know now whether there's a possibility that the health care workers in this province — mostly women — can look forward to being included in a pay equity program under this government. With a limited ceiling of $40 million and no particular inclination to say yes or no to including more than 13,000 women, the minister is giving me an answer there.

One of the most dangerous things you're engaged in here is that the "ability to pay" — the actual use of those words — suggests that you are turning a basically political concept into a technical detail. You are taking the political will that this government might want to exert to make sure that we have a real ability to pay on the part of our taxpayers.... It is the middle-income people who pay the majority of the taxes in this province. Corporate taxes, although they have not gone down, produce less of a percentage in revenue than they used to under this government. It's the middle-income-earner who is really paying the taxes. What you're saying here is that middle-income-earners' ability to pay is going to be dependent upon their reduced income in terms of what they are actually capable of receiving because of the work of your commissioner. You are taking an act of political will and value — the ability to pay of the public sector — and transforming it into some kind of a technical piece of work, handing it over to a commissioner who, with a group of guidelines, is going to be able to determine who should or should not receive a decent pay packet. You yourself are interfering with the very market you claim you want to protect.

As I say, you're so clever with this you're going to meet yourself coming one day. You've announced this morning that day care workers will not be covered. This is before the bill goes through and before the commissioner has had a chance to look at it, but you're announcing that day care workers won't be covered.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: Yes, small day care. There's no such thing as a large day care in this province. The community care facilities probably won't be covered. You're probably going to say that transition houses won't be covered — right? Because the guidelines will be manipulated to make sure that transition houses aren't covered? Will women's centres be covered by this legislation? They don't get enough money to start with — is that it? They're not organized — is that the problem?

One last question. This legislation is firing a shot across the bow of future negotiations that may be coming down between the HLRA and the HEU, hospital employees and the nurses. I'm assuming then, that your commissioner will be taking a very close look at these women's salaries. With the women in the health professions, whose work has been traditionally undervalued and underpaid, am I correct in thinking that the commissioner will be taking a look at those settlements within some context of ability to pay, even though our society has traditionally so underpaid these workers that they're finding jobs in other provinces and in other countries? Will it be a part of your commissioner's basic mandate to take these women's wages, which are not included as part of your pay equity proposal, and ensure that these women continue to earn a low pay packet — to take that home and then correspondingly have their ability to pay taxes interfered with? Would you answer that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The member kept asking a rhetorical question. "Am I correct...?” I'll answer it for you: no, you're not correct. But you do have your biases in order; that's one thing I can say for you.

You said that we have here embodied within this legislation a political concept. I want to tell you something, hon. member, and you may not know this. Sitting in the comfort of Point Grey, you may not understand that there are people out there in the private sector who are hurting right now and who don't have the ability to pay any more. There's only one taxpayer's pocket, whether you take the money out of that pocket from the federal government, the municipal government or the provincial government. It doesn't even become an economic concept; it becomes an economic reality, hon. member, when you do not have a paycheque, when you cannot pay your mortgage, when you cannot make the payments on your car.

[ Page 11829 ]

What we are asking and what those thousands of people who are affected right now by a downturn in the economy.... All they're asking the public sector is this: "Look, you have security of tenure. You have security of employment. For gosh sakes, don't let your wages grow so that we can't get out of this pit that we're getting ourselves into. Don't let the government go into the marketplace and borrow huge amounts of money that our children and our children's children are going to have to try and pay off and never pay off." That's an economic reality. That's not a political concept, that's basic common sense, hon. member.

I know it doesn't wash well with the socialist mind, but that's how we've got into such a good state of economy in British Columbia. It's because of this kind of government fiscal policy that has got us from 1952 to where we are in 1991: the best place in Canada, the best economy in Canada.

I want to tell you something else, hon. member. I don't like having to see people work at the minimum wage, either. I know there is pay equity that needs to be dealt with, and the government is dealing with that in a better way than any other province in Canada. I don't like to see people work at those wages, either. Yes, there are people underpaid, but I can also tell you, when I say that we have the highest weekly wage economy in Canada, that the number of people working at the minimum wage is somewhere around 6 percent. The rest of the folks are much above that. We want to make sure the rest of the folks are much above that. The public sector settlements are now leading the way. They're way out ahead of those other folks who are trying to pay your wages and my wages and the wages of everybody else who works in the public sector.

You talked about corporate taxes. You were saying that corporate taxes were terrible. I know the hon. member over here said something like this: it was the right of politicians to fiddle with taxes; that's what they were elected to do. And not just any taxes, you know — corporate taxes. There's nothing that makes socialist blood run more pure — the adrenalin pump more — than to get after corporations. If you can shut down a corporation and get at those rotten corporations.... Somehow you think the government can do it all better. Well, it's been proven time after time, in country after country, in place after place, that the government can't do it better.

You keep asking, hon. member: how will this or that particular program be affected? This type of debate, with the greatest respect, had better be addressed in the budget debate. It does not fit within the purview of this section. It must be addressed within a budget debate or an estimate debate, but certainly not in this particular piece of legislation. Quite frankly, with the greatest respect, you are out of order.

MRS. BOONE: I just have a couple of questions to the minister.

Over the past years we've seen a lot of changes taking place within the public service, and we've seen a tremendous number of jobs turned into personal service contracts — into consultants. It seems to be the biggest-paying job right now, to go into the consulting business. I'd like to ask the minister — it was asked yesterday, but you never really answered it — if personal service contracts are included within the guidelines that you have and if they will be affected by the wage restraint guidelines that you have right now. There's a tremendous number of jobs out there right now that were formerly in the public service and that are now under personal service contracts. What is the relationship between them and the government at this point in time?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Welcome to the new Clerk at the table. He lost most of his hair overnight. I don't know what's happened.

Personal service contracts would be covered under this act if they fall within the purview of any of the acts that are listed in this section. If they are not covered or do not fall within the purview of any of these acts, they would not be covered; but if they do, they are covered. Again, if there's one or two people or something of that nature, as we mentioned in day care, it probably wouldn't be worth the while of the commissioner to be involved in one particular instance. However, generally speaking, if they are covered in any of the acts — the host of acts that are listed.... I can read them to you: a municipality; a regional district; an improvement district as defined in the Municipal Act; a board of school trustees under the School Act; a university as defined in the University Act; an institution as defined in the College and Institute Act; a community care facility as defined in the Community Care Facility Act; and those that are covered under the Hospital Act. If they are covered and fall within the purview of any of these acts, they would be covered. If they do not, they are not.

MRS. BOONE: We're still a little confused by this. I think we're a great deal confused by this, because.... Let's take an example then. There is a consultant employed by a school district, and they have a contract that expires. If they come back again, is the consultant then kept to the same amount? Are they within the guidelines? Will they have the same restrictions placed upon them that the others had? If you were hiring somebody at that point in time, would you have to keep it within those guidelines? Or can consultants come and say, "I will do this for X number of dollars," and still be unlimited in terms of negotiating their fee increases? How does that work, Mr. Minister?

[10:45]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Public sector employee means a person employed by a public sector employer. If it was an accountant, lawyer, doctor or professional consultant consulting into a school board, and if they didn't fall within the definition of being an employee, they wouldn't be covered, naturally. In this province you can't just make people

[ Page 11830 ]

agents and say that they're not covered under the labour act or other acts, and that they don't fall within the definition of being an employee. I mean, you just can't get away with that. If they're truly consultants and are truly professionals being paid professional fees, then, of course, they would not fall within this act.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MRS. BOONE. Well, I think we're getting a little further here, Mr. Chairman. The minister has admitted that basically all of the contracts that have gone out, which were formerly government jobs, are now exempt, that those professional services out there are exempt, and that they can receive increases, but not the workers out there who are employed by the government per se.

What about people who are...? If the government hires a company, then they're contracted. A contract is given to a group to clean the government buildings. Those people then hire employees to do the cleaning for them. Are those employees in these guidelines, or are they exempt? Where do they fit?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, I would think the process of contracting and of tendering.... A company wishing to have a contract for cleaning or gardening or whatever would tender either through the British Columbia Buildings Corporation or some other corporation to have that service delivered. All things being equal — quality, type of work, dependability and all of these things being considered — generally the contract is given to the corporation that bids the lowest amount. So these people are covered within the budgetary process as well. They're captured within the budgetary process because the corporation — the government entity in most cases — has to come back to government and say: "We need X number of dollars to complete this function." Part of it is maintenance, part of it is replacement of buildings, or part of it might be fixing a lawn or something. So they fall within that, and they are working for the contractor. Those individuals are not employees of government. They are working for the contractor, and they will negotiate their wages with that contractor. But the constraints are still there, because there are many contractors out there bidding on the particular piece of work. So the constraints are there, and it follows through the system. If they are not employees of government.... We're not legislating pay in the private sector. We're trying to help the private sector have an ability to pay the public sector. So they would not be covered, but the budgetary constraints are still there through the budgeting and through the tendering and contracting process.

MRS. BOONE: Well, Mr. Minister, you've just told us that all those highway contractors and all those people who have been privatized — thousands of contractors — and who were or would have been, as government employees, under these guidelines and had wage restraints will not have the restraints put on them, and all the government employees will. So all those contractors — all those privatizations that this government has worked so hard at in giving out the jobs and contracting things out and putting positions into the hands of their friends and insiders — will not be controlled whatsoever by the government. It's only going to be those people who are paid directly by the government who will have their wages controlled. Those other people out there who were unfortunate enough to have been privatized will have no controls put on them whatsoever. We've seen an increase of hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees that this government has spent in recent years. If I was going to advise my children what to be right now, I'd say: "Go out and be a consultant." That's the thing to be. It's the growing profession in British Columbia. I know there are government employees working side by side with consultants who are earning $150, $200 or $300 per day to do jobs they were previously doing at government wages. You are not controlling those people who are currently making a tremendous amount of money, Mr. Minister. You are controlling the workers out there. It makes no sense at all.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's most interesting that the hon. member for Prince George North — Heinrich country — is now arguing that employees working in privatized highway maintenance groups are better off than they were working for the government. Isn't that a stretch for a socialist? I don't know if it was you, specifically, but I heard a host of other members over there, when we were talking about privatizing highways, arguing that it was bad for the employees — it was terrible. I heard John Shields saying that it was the worst thing he could ever think of. Now you are saying that these people are better off. My, my, my! You can't have it both ways, hon. member.

There is a restriction on any of these people. It's called tendering. It's called the old free enterprise system out there working. It means you've got to do a better job. If you're tendering on something, you've got to do a sharper job than the next people down the line, or they will come in and take away your customer. That's true of government. If someone is contracting for government and not doing a good job as a highway maintenance contractor, there’s always someone who will do a better job, hon. member.

The constraints are there, through the budgetary process and through the private enterprise process. In other words, the customer is up on his or her throne ruling all parts of the realm, the way it's supposed to work in a private enterprise economy — not ruled by government.

MR. CLARK: Of course, the minister knows there are hundreds, if not thousands, of personal service contracts that are not tendered but simply awarded. There is no competitive bid; there is no tendering procedure. This isn't just contracting to companies. This is personal service contracts that are entered into. The minister has indicated now that those people are essentially exempt from this restraint bill.

[ Page 11831 ]

To take the Premier's example, which he has referred to several times, that $250,000 administrator in a hospital can now, rather than work directly for the hospital, contract services. It's absolutely clear: he or she could contract the services back for $250,000 on a personal service contract, and thereby escape the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, with that, we'll move along to other sections of the bill.

The minister is chafing to get up, so we'll let him do that.

HON. MR. VEITCH: With the greatest respect to the brilliant mind of the second member for Vancouver East, your argument just doesn't wash. Where in the world would the hospital board get the extra money to raise this individual from $250,000 to $500,000, or whatever you suggest it is? They are caught within the constraints of the budgeting process the same as any other public institution. It all falls within, first, the ability of the private sector to pay government so government can send money on to these institutions. With the greatest respect to you, your argument doesn't wash.

MR. CLARK: The reality is that there is a gigantic loophole in this legislation, which the minister has admitted, and that is with respect to contracting-out or personal service contracts. All that has to happen is that the hospital give a raise beyond the 3 or 4 percent contemplated by the government by the personal service contract vehicle, and simply take it out of the wages of nurses and other employees in the health care system who are in fact covered by this legislation and whose wages, in fact, are restrained.

That's exactly what could happen under this legislation. There are hundreds, if not thousands — I think there are thousands, frankly — of untendered personal service contracts that the government has entered into, where the employee on a personal service contract who works side by side with an employee in the public service will now be exempted by this legislation.

That's not to say that we don't recognize there are limits on the ability of any public sector employer to raise the wages, but it could very clearly be used selectively to reward management employees particularly in order to retain them. I think it's very clear from the legislation that that's permitted by this legislation. It's simply a loophole which clearly can be exploited by public sector employers if they wish to choose to reward certain employees.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I'm quite prepared to move on to other sections.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MRS. BOONE: This section deals with the purpose of the act. I really have a lot of problems with this, Mr. Minister, because I don't agree that the purpose of the act is what is stated here, which is to establish a program that will ensure fair compensation for public sector employees, based on the taxpayers', and therefore the public sector employers', ability to pay. This bill has absolutely nothing to do with providing fair compensation for public sector employees, and it has very little to do with the taxpayers' ability to pay. We've seen that in the remarks just previous to this, where it's clear that only a certain segment of the population will be restrained, and that the government will still be allowed to give out lucrative personal contracts to their friends, insiders and any number of people around. That has very little to do with fair wages.

This is a political bill. It has more to do with finding an election issue than with concern for fairness or for the taxpayers' ability to pay. This government has a history that has shown they have absolutely no concern whatsoever for the taxpayers. I'll just go through a few things here and see if the minister has any answers for the taxpayers out there.

Where was the concern for the taxpayers when the Coquihalla budget went $500 million over budget? Where was the concern for the taxpayers when small business taxes were raised 2 percent in the first year of this government's term in office? The next year they decreased 1 percent, but that still leaves them 1 percent above the pre-Vander Zalm era. Where was the concern for the taxpayers when the corporate taxes were reduced, and taxes and fees increased on individuals to compensate for that? Where was the concern for the taxpayers when you introduced the property purchase tax? When this side of the House introduced an amendment to exempt first-time homebuyers, where was the concern of the government at that point? The government voted en masse against our amendment; they voted en masse against first-time homebuyers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, section 61 of our standing orders asks for relevancy with respect to debate in committee. One of the other purposes is that you do not discuss legislation that was before the House at another time. So if you would be relevant to the purpose of the act, the Chair would appreciate it.

[11:00]

MRS. BOONE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of this act, as the government says, is to express concern about the public sector's ability to pay and about the taxpayers' ability to pay. It's my contention that this government has never shown any concern for the taxpayers' ability to pay — now or ever.

We've seen increases over the years in user fees for physiotherapy, occupational therapy and chiropractic treatment — all of these things affecting the taxpayer. When we talked about the taxpayers' ability to pay at that time, saying that it would have an adverse effect on many seniors and those people who are less fortunate than us, the government turned a deaf ear.

We've seen a shift in the tax burden from central taxation over to the local taxpayer, municipalities and

[ Page 11832 ]

school taxes. We've seen an increase in over 700 fees and services in British Columbia — 784 fees were increased over the past four years. It now costs you more to be born, to get married and to die, and to do everything else in between, in British Columbia. It's incredible.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Are you talking about death or taxes?

MRS. BOONE: I'm talking about everything. In my area there are many things: sewage treatment, sewage inspection fees, the fees for hunting, licensing, parks. Everything that you can think of, this government has instituted a fee on, including your health care fees, your ICBC — everything that touches the taxpayer has been touched by this government, and now they express concern about the taxpayers' ability to pay. It's a little late to do that, Mr. Minister, because the taxpayers' pockets have already been picked dry by this government.

However, while this government was literally picking the pockets of the taxpayers — the ordinary working people in British Columbia — it was giving away money like mad people. We saw the golden handshake given to David Poole. We saw increased spending on government propaganda. You can't go to your home and turn on your television without seeing some government ad promoting something or other. We've seen $8 million wasted on your minister-of-state program that you put through and then withdrew. We don't even hear anything more about regionalization or your ministers of state — $8 million that was given away without debate, through special warrants in this Legislature, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister has a good point, hon. member. I draw your attention to subsection 61(2): "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly" — and I underline the word "strictly" — "relevant to the item or clause under consideration." I think the hon. member is straying quite far from that. I would ask you to discuss section 3.

MRS. BOONE: It's clear to me — and to anybody else, I think — that this government's concern about the ability to pay as expressed in the purpose of this act clearly doesn't exist. There is no concern, there never has been and there never will be any by this government on the public's ability to pay. This is strictly a political act. There is no other purpose with this act. There's certainly no purpose in providing fair compensation to employees, and there's certainly no purpose in trying to save taxpayers' dollars.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, we have just heard a political speech. I know that the hon. member for Prince George North knows that what she is saying is pure bunkum. Don't worry about it. When you go home at night and commune upon your own bed, you'll be forgiven. Don't worry about it at all. You know, we have....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will you be relevant on section 3. I might also observe that I hear the Leader of the Opposition, but I can't see him in his chair.

HON. MR. VEITCH: He was just clearing his throat, and that was one of his best speeches.

Mr. Chairman, we have either the lowest or the second-lowest tax rate in Canada across the board. We do care about taxpayers. We care about all the people of British Columbia, and we have shown that commitment year after year, except for those 1,200 dreadful days and nights that the NDP were in power.

To the hon. member, we go even further than that. I know we're not supposed to talk about future legislation, but the 12-point....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I won't offend the Chair. The 12-point protection plan, which this bill is part of, will freeze tax rates in British Columbia. Yes, we care.

You talked about regionalization. You come from Prince George, and you wouldn't have the kind of booming economy you have in Prince George right now if it hadn't been for regionalization — bringing in the hydrogen peroxide plant and items of this kind. Regionalization has worked in each and every corner of this province, and we've diversified in this province in a way that we've never diversified before. That's why we're not affected as much as other provinces are as a result of this recession. That's why we're able to offer wage increases at all to the public sector, hon. member.

Do you want to understand the purpose of this act? First of all, British Columbia is a small, open economy. We've got an economy with a handful of people — a little over three million people — and we have a budget that in this fiscal year that we're just ending represented about $15.3 billion. We have to pay for that with three million people. That simply means that you have to sell a lot of goods to somebody else, and you have to be competitive in the world marketplace. British Columbians have to be sharper traders than anybody else in the country, and we are. We're doing better than any other province in Canada, and we're doing it under a free enterprise socialist government. We care about people.

Our place, hon. member, in the trading marketplace accepts market prices rather than sets them. We have to accept the market price for our commodities. We have to accept the price for our finished goods that we ship offshore in increasingly greater numbers. The year before last there was an 11.3 percent increase in exports from the province.

As the economy moves through up cycles and down cycles, so does our taxpayers' ability to pay. That ability to pay determines an individual employer's ability to pay. We ignore that marketplace at

[ Page 11833 ]

our peril. The new government in the province of Ontario has ignored the marketplace, which makes things work around the world in this global village we live in, at its peril. It's going to take generations to get out of the mess caused by socialism in Ontario. We're not going to allow that to happen here in British Columbia, I can assure you, hon. member.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. CLARK: The compensation commissioner has been working for some time now. Can the minister inform the House when he started work and what his salary is?

HON. MR. VEITCH: We will have to determine the exact date the commissioner came on staff, but the salary is $104,000 per annum.

MR. CLARK: Because there is no budget, perhaps you can give us a sense of the magnitude of the budget — or, at the very least, tell us what's been spent to date. I notice with some interest that he has letterhead and has been communicating with a variety of people for some time now. Could we just get a sense of the size of the staff and the budget that will be required?

I note the minister is getting the answer. I'll retain the floor until he is ready.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The budget to fiscal year-end, the end of March, is $215,000. Mr. Lien has one adviser and one clerical person. There will be eight on staff when the full complement is reached.

MR. CLARK: If we can do this in this section, Mr. Chairman, we won't have to do it again later. Briefly, the bill contemplates appointing acting commissioners to adjudicate disputes. Will that be an in-house operation, or would it be contemplated that there would be arbitrators and the like who would be contracted with and designated under the act, and would therefore essentially be consultants to the commissioner, to deal with the multitude of collective agreements that will be administered?

HON. MR. VEITCH: There will be one registrar. He may or may not be contracted. The balance of the staff will be on the payroll of the commission.

MR. CLARK: The bill contemplates special commissioners, as I read it — not particularly in this section, but.... I just want some assurance from the minister — not to tie the hands.... I'm just curious. The minister says that there will essentially be eight in-house people and perhaps one contract employee. Is it not contemplated that from time to time people will be brought in to deal with specific matters? It seems to me that the bill refers to.... Will the special commissioners or acting commissioners be designated in-house employees, or will they be contracted out?

HON. MR. VEITCH: They could be either. For the short term they would probably be contracted — both specialists and professionals. Beyond that, it's hard to know exactly what is going to be required, but it's contemplated that there will be eight permanent people within that unit, and from time to time there could be arbitrators called in — or whoever else.

[11:15]

MR. CLARK: Just a last question on this section, Mr. Chairman. The minister gave us — and I appreciated it — how much has been spent this fiscal year, or budgeted. Can he give us a general sense of the budget contemplated for the coming fiscal year?

HON. MR. VEITCH; We must realize that when we're talking about budgets, we're dealing with budget requests at the present time. The request from the commissioner is $1 million for the complete operation for the next fiscal year of '91-92.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if I could get the minister to look at section 5(1)(e) and just explain that if he could. I'm sure he has briefing notes.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm glad the hon. member drew this to my attention. Subsection 5(1)(e) is exactly the point we were discussing this morning when I made my statement. It gives the commissioner the flexibility to decide whether small groups are in or out — whether they are represented by the act or whether they are not. This is the determining subsection here.

MR. CLARK: The minister said this morning — I don't want to put words in his mouth — that the rule of thumb will be that a majority of the funding would have to come directly or indirectly from the public sector. Is that correct?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, that's the rule of thumb.

MR. CLARK. Just one last point on (1)(e). We had this discussion — and I don't want to revisit it — about the number of collective agreements. I appreciate the minister bringing to the House the round numbers of about 1,200 collective agreements that would be administered. But it seems to me that, because the bill contemplates more than just unionized employees, compensation plans would have to be drawn up for significantly more than that.

In particular, Admiral Yanow's organization had a full-time staff person reviewing the health care field to determine which ones were covered under the ambit of that act. Of course, what he was rejecting — what was not covered by the act — were non-union-

[ Page 11834 ]

ized employees who did not have a collective agreement to file. As I recall my discussion with that individual and with Admiral Yanow, it was dozens, if not more than 100, care facilities that, for a variety of reasons, didn't fall under that legislation and would fall under this legislation.

With respect, it seems to me likely that eight employees is not going to do the trick, given that Admiral Yanow had a full-time staff person simply trying to find out who in the health care field was covered. It seems likely to me that you might have to have one or two full-time people not only finding out who's covered, but then engaging in compensation plans for non-union employees — which would be, I suspect, more difficult, given that a collective agreement is fairly straightforward.

In non-union care facilities that are funded more than 50 percent by the provincial government, the onus would be on the public sector employer and, I assume, the commissioner's office to then draft up a compensation plan for that operation. The onus is on the employer. Of course, the commissioner will have to have staff people to determine which employers are covered by the legislation. Presumably they will have to direct those public sector employers to comply with the legislation. I just suspect it will be significantly more than what was covered by the Public Sector Bargaining Disclosure Act.

Maybe the minister could confirm that for me or has some thoughts on that.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member spoke about eight employees. I think eight employees was the number covered under the old compensation stabilization plan. It may well work under this plan.

There are other quite large employers within the public sector who do not have union contracts as well. I'm thinking of one here that is represented by my good friend, the Lottery Corporation. I don't think they are, anyway. They may have parts that are unionized but parts that are not.

It may well be that some of these organizations are going to have to file compensation plans, but I don't think it will take very long before the commissioner will be able to sort out which ones really qualify and which ones do not. As you correctly pointed out, section 5(1)(e) allows for that determination.

Eight employees might be the number — it would seem like a logical number.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to question the minister on subsection (1)(g). It says that the commissioner shall determine whether or not section 14 is being complied with. Section 14, of course, requires that in reaching the compensation plan the parties shall give paramount consideration to the ability to pay of the public sector employer. So we're back to the public ability to pay.

The point, I believe, is that the public sector employer can be a broad number of people. How much consultation will the commissioner do? Will he consult with each individual public sector employer as defined under section 1, or as laid out in the schedule? Will he consult with those as employers?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Each public sector employer, as determined by this act, will be required to file a compensation plan with the commissioner. Section (g) talks about section 14. That's the whole essence of this act; it's the ability to pay. If any public sector employer settles on an amount with their employees that's higher than their ability to pay, then that employer must provide evidence to the commissioner as to how that entity can find the ability to pay — where they find those additional funds or how they're going to make it work. Are they going to improve through efficiencies of scale? Are they going to operate better? Are salaried workers going to put in a little extra time? With the money available, how is the employer going to pay those extra increases? And if there's no ability to pay in the apparent ability to pay — if those questions have not been answered to the commissioner's satisfaction — then the agreement will be sent back to the public sector employer to have them either find the ability to pay or rework the numbers.

MS. EDWARDS: The question that I want answered is whether the ability to pay is determined on the basis of the list of employers at the time. Is that ability to pay related to the individual school board, the individual public library or the individual group home? Is that where the criterion comes in? Is it at the individual public employer level, or is it somewhere else?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Again, there's flexibility within the act. It would normally be each individual employer. It might indeed be a group of public sector employers that had banded together. The aggregate of that group would have to have the ability to pay the increases they have negotiated with their particular unions or, in the case of non-union entities, with the employees. So in most cases it would be in each individual employer's.... It depends on size. It might very well be a group of public sector employers. I can't think of just who that would be right now, but there are groups of employers, and they might choose to operate in that fashion.

MS. EDWARDS: My question needs a little more definition. If the commissioner is going to consider the ability to pay of individual public sector employers, such as an individual school board, what does he have to measure it against, then, better than what the individual school board puts to him? The commissioner is trying to decide for a school board whether it meets the ability of the taxpayer to pay, but you are presumably going to go beyond the ultimate taxpayer to which that board is responsible. You say that they're all together, but my question is: when the commissioner goes in, is the commissioner working with the school board, or is the school board now trying to come in and make some rules that have a

[ Page 11835 ]

standard totally outside where that individual school board is working?

Mr. Chairman, the issue is who determines ability to pay? We're right back to the spot where somebody else is determining the ability to pay better, the minister says, than those elected people on a school board, for example. Or are you going to tell me, Mr. Minister, that the commissioner then goes in and works with the school board and within the board's ability to pay — in which case you're simply adding some staff to the school board? What you are doing is taking away and moving the standard to a different place.

HON. MR. VEITCH: School boards are individual employers, Mr. Chairman. The HLRA would represent a group of employers. The school board would file its compensation plan with the commissioner and say: "Yes, we have an ability to pay." They would certify that they have the ability to pay this amount of money. If they didn't have the ability to pay the amount included in aggregate in the plan, then they would have to prove to the commissioner's satisfaction where they would find that extra ability. Would it be through referenda? How would they find that extra ability to pay? If, in the commissioner's opinion, they did not have the ability to pay, then the package would be sent back so it could be reworked. We're not moving the posts or any of those things. We're saying that each school board has an amount of money, the majority of which — one way or another — finds its way to them from the provincial government. Some of it finds its way from property taxation into the school board. In addition to that they have another device, if the school boards care to use it: referenda. All of these, in aggregate or in part, would represent either a school board's ability to pay or, with a referendum, an expanded ability to pay.

[11:30]

They would have to prove conclusively to the commissioner that they have the ability to pay the increases, the dollars — the costs of all kinds that, in the final analysis, represent dollars, whether they are for vacation time, decreased class size or whatever. They have to prove to the commissioner that they have the ability to pay when they forward the plan to him. If they don't — I hate to repeat myself — then they have to tell the commissioner where they think they can find that ability to pay or where they will find it.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm going to change to a different example, but as it's laid out, the whole principle is there. I'm going to talk about a college board, for example, which is totally appointed by the government. They have the ability now to lay out their own budgets within the guidelines and funding given to them by the provincial government. I cannot see what value a commissioner has if the government is already giving the money, suggesting what the guidelines are and appointing the board members.

What I'm suggesting is that right along the line, no matter what it is, there are currently ways — democratic ways — of appointing and electing the people who ultimately spend our public money. Again, all this does is put all of that decision-making to the side and say that one person will decide. There is no indication here that anybody decides now except this commissioner, so anybody else who has been sitting there, who has been elected, who has been trying to carry out the public business after appointment even, that is of no concern anymore. Only one person in this province is going to decide whether or not the people in the province have an ability to pay.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Within the college and institute system, estimates are developed and requests are sent in through budget development units or whatever type of process. There are formulas for each plan, course or operation of the college or institute, whether it be administration or whatever. There is a dollar value attached to it, and it's part of the budgetary process.

They make their request to the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. That ministry then goes to Treasury Board and puts its best case forward for the funding to cover colleges and institutes, and individual colleges and institutes are part of that. There always has been a lot of discussion back and forth over the years as to what this program means and whether you really need this type of administrator or course. That has gone on for years in the college and institute system, and it will continue to go on.

If a board of governors of an institute such as BCIT decides to have a cost in their compensation plan that is in excess of the money given to them from all sources — tuition fees and government grants — and if they could show the commissioner no way to get that extra funding, then the plan would be sent back to them saying: "This does not work. You do not have an ability to pay; therefore this plan is not acceptable. Find a way to make it work. Change your numbers." The process has gone on for years in the college and institute system. I don't see it changing very much at all.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to pursue the line of questioning that my colleague from Kootenay was just addressing. But I want to make an observation before I move on to another part of this section. The observation is that for school districts or college boards, whomever we may be identifying as a public sector employer, it is this government that makes the decision about what funding is available. In fact, this bill is now saying that, having made that decision and having informed those bodies who are responsible for administering those dollars, we're going to put another roadblock in the way in terms of you doing that. We're going to abandon all of the processes that have been in place — of collective bargaining, of parties clearly and faithfully and honestly coming to an agreement. This clause that we are looking at right now defines the powers that this government has taken unto itself through the com-

[ Page 11836 ]

mission to interfere with the operation of very large sectors within the public sector of British Columbia.

Let me ask, then, specifically about section 5(2)(c). The commissioner, it appears, has the power to make his own independent rulings about how public sector employees may be organized within a bargaining unit or within a workplace and then unilaterally to order the employer to restructure that workplace. We've noted, for example, that around issues relating to pay equity or the fair classification of employees, employers and employees very often establish some new categories — categories based on the needs of the workplace and appropriate decisions for categories of employees. This particular section would indicate that the commissioner has pretty absolute powers to come in and intrude on that process and to make his own rulings about what is or isn't appropriate. I draw attention to this example because I think it illustrates the all-encompassing powers of the commission and the destabilizing influence that this commission can and will have on workplace relationships and good policies regarding employee-employer relations.

Can the minister confirm that this clause in fact gives the commissioner unfettered power to make any of those decisions that he wishes without any guideline or perspective on how those decisions are made, except his decision about what is or isn't appropriate.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member stated that big government makes the final decision on the public employers' ability to pay. That is not true. The taxpayers make the first and final decision. Governments could make another decision if they wanted to go out and borrow huge amounts of money in the international marketplace and put us into tremendous deficit positions, such as the federal government has got us into, where we've paid, I believe, $43 billion in interest this year just to service the federal debt. We could get into that position. But this government is not going to get this province into that spot. We're not going to let it happen.

The member talked about section 5(2)(c). There's nothing unusual about establishing a bargaining unit. Indeed, many arguments have been fought over the years, when a union goes for certification, about whether there was an appropriate bargaining unit. The hon. member knows that. There are lots of times that that's been the sole argument. "This is an appropriate bargaining unit." "This is not an appropriate bargaining unit." And the fight would go back and forth between the two protagonists. Sometimes the only person, the arbitrator, who sat in the middle and made the decision....

So the commissioner will, of course, consult. Many times a bargaining unit will be broken up for some reason or other. Or the duties or nature of the work will change, and some of those employees would fit more appropriately into another bargaining unit. Their compensation level may be higher or better in that unit.

After consultation, it's determined here again in section 5(1)(f) of the bill that says: "The commissioner shall ... determine whether a public sector employer has placed a public sector employee in an appropriate group of public sector employees for purposes of applying the guidelines or the compensation regulations...." If they don't get within a particular group, the commissioner has the ability to ensure that those public sector employees are in the appropriate bargaining unit, so that when the compensation plan comes forward, you'll be able to know that surely they belong in that particular unit. When the compensation plan comes forward, you'll know whether or not there is an ability to pay or whether they are mixed up in special-needs units or whatever.

I see nothing at all Draconian with respect to the commissioner's powers contained in this bill.

MS. A. HAGEN: With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I just want to rest my case. The minister has just made the case that the commissioner has the power to make any decisions he sees fit about any aspect of a collective agreement, including the nuts and bolts of an agreement about where people are placed in a bargaining unit. The powers are unprecedented in respect to this legislation.

Sections 5 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

MR. CLARK: There are two sections we want to talk about in section 10. The first, of course, deals with compensation beyond wages — wage restraint. The second deals with the retroactivity. I propose, Mr. Chairman, for your benefit and for the minister's benefit, that retroactivity is dealt with in sections 10, 19, 20 and 47. We'll try to deal with that debate as one and get through it.

Before we get into that debate, we'd like to discuss at some length the question of compensation as it has been broadened by this legislation. This legislation goes far beyond legislation brought in by the Bennett administration, the compensation stabilization program, because now it's no longer simply wage controls but what's defined as total compensation.

Total compensation is defined in this section — section 10(2)(b) — to include benefits, perks, work practices, work rules or working conditions that have been implemented and essentially could cost money. It gives me some concern. My colleagues all have questions in this area, so I won't go into too much detail myself right now except to give one example to start the discussion.

Let's take the Ferry Corporation. The Ferry Corporation was ordered by the Workers' Compensation Board to remove asbestos in ferries. That is an expensive undertaking. That, it seems to me, would be covered by this section, because any initiative that's taken subsequent to the act being proclaimed, any initiative that's taken by employees to improve workplace health and safety or even ordered by the Workers' Compensation Board to improve workplace

[ Page 11837 ]

health and safety will now essentially come out of the pay packets of the employees. That is now covered as a cost item to be restrained by this legislation. The minister is shaking his head, but it's absolutely clear from this section. So I'd like the minister then to try to clarify it for the public.

[11:45]

HON. MR. VEITCH: We used to have a term for that in post-secondary education. We used to call it cash capital. I think they now call it minor capital, where you're removing asbestos or doing something that is really of a capital improvement nature or of a leasehold improvement nature. This is covered under separate budget items and would not have anything to do with the ability to pay nor with any of the payroll items included here. It's the same taxpayer, and it's something that would have to be budgeted for. The budget request would go forward something like this for renovations — as I said, we used to call it cash capital — and minor capital items, $10 million or whatever. That would go into that budget line item and would be expended for that purpose. It would not be included in the wage framework. I hope I've clarified that for the hon. member.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I want to pose a few questions to the minister regarding section 10(2)(b) and to pick up on what I think is the fundamental question — namely, just what the impact might be on contracts that have been settled and that seem to have changed the working conditions.

Let me start, if I might, by emphasizing that I raise these questions because I have a very peculiar and specific interest as a representative of Nanaimo. As you know, we have just ended a rather lengthy and uncomfortable teachers' strike there. One of the terms of that settlement had to do with mainstreaming and putting a cap on the number of students with special needs who in fact can be allowed into any given class.

It seems to me, as I read this particular section of the bill, that what might indeed happen here is that those new working conditions that have been negotiated will be subject to scrutiny — and, perhaps, to rollback. If that's the case, that means that the teachers in my school district — and I'm sure I speak for other teachers around the province — are going to be subject to a kind of punishment for implementing, in fact, a government policy, in this case mainstreaming.

It's a good measure, one that we all agree with and think is a good idea. But in order to make the program work, the teachers negotiated to put a cap of two children with special needs per class, and that very policy may have the effect, then, of hurting their wage settlement and their contract settlement.

Let me give you, if I might, Mr. Chairman, the reason I present that case. Section (2)(b) does open up the area covered by this package to include much more than just wages and benefits. Indeed, if we look at (2)(b), we see that the specific reference is: "...any work practices, work rules or working conditions that if implemented, changed or discontinued will increase or decrease the ability to pay of public sector employers...." If that's the case, certainly things like negotiated reduction in class size and certainly things like a cap on mainstreaming obviously become a factor directly affecting the ability to pay, as that term is defined and used in this legislation.

The question, then, very specifically, to the minister is: am I correct? I've looked briefly at the guidelines, and they seem to substantiate my claim. Am I correct that the contract recently negotiated, where there now is a cap on the number of children with special needs who are permitted into a classroom, can be reviewed and will perhaps be subject to rollback in order to comply with 10(2)(b)?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I appreciate that the protracted negotiations that have gone on in Nanaimo have been both lengthy and uncomfortable for all concerned. Now you are speaking of special needs children and how they will be accommodated. I don't know what the Nanaimo School District's ability to pay is. I don't know if they're going to go to referendum, or what they're going to do. It may very well be — if what I hear in the media is correct — that they've settled for 16 percent. It would appear that they have settled far above what any private sector group is settling for at the present time. So they are paying way in excess of what society is able to pay.

It would seem to be more appropriate for all concerned to take the needs of those special children into consideration, give them some paramountcy and not shove the wages up by 16 percent. Why not think about those special needs children first? After all, let's get our priorities in order here, hon. member. Society can afford so much, and with the aggregate of all the moneys flowing into the school district, they can afford to pay only so much. They understand that within the group of students that will be attending those schools, there are special needs children who need help.

All right, let's give a little help. Let's show a little compassion. Let's not give the money to the other people who don't have special needs. That's what we're talking about here; we're talking about equity and fairness and the public's ability to pay; sometimes we're talking about greed too, hon. member.

Let those people and the school boards who have negotiated the contract sit down for a minute to take a look at those special needs children and do a balance sheet or a matrix. Take a look at it and see where they list them. Are they at the bottom of the list or at the top? Let them look in the mirror and face themselves for a minute. If what I hear is correct, it appears to me that the Nanaimo School District has exceeded the public's ability to pay without really caring very much about the special needs of those children. If that's the case, I think it's wrong.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I'm a little surprised at the rather intemperate outburst from the Minister of Finance. I guess this government is in desperate straits, and understandably the minister is over-

[ Page 11838 ]

wrought. I have sympathy, but I won't play that game, except to say that I deplore the attack on teachers and on elected officials — school trustees — who are trying to look out for the public interest and are being accused of being greedy, incompetent and so forth. Sadly, I think that's a comment that seems to represent precisely the attitude of this government in this legislation.

My question is very simple, Mr. Chairman. It doesn't take three degrees to answer this. It has to do only with whether it is correct for me to say that the government's policy of encouraging mainstreaming is in fact going to have to be paid for by the wages and working conditions of the teachers. In other words, their settlement, in an effort to provide a legitimate, real and valuable learning experience for students with special needs.... It is going to mean that in all likelihood they will have to take a pay cut or some kind of reduction in their working conditions because they went to bat for special-needs children. Is that the case, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. VEITCH: You say that they went to bat — "they," I guess, being the school trustees — for special-needs children.

MR. LOVICK: Both parties.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Both parties went to bat for special-needs children. On the face of it, without knowing the Nanaimo School Board's ability to pay — so we're dealing with some imponderables here — you say they went to bat for them. But they didn't go to bat for those special-needs children through the amount of money they knew they were going to have available to them. They didn't place them sufficiently high on the priority list, above their own ability to receive an inordinate increase in wages.

Unfortunately, their priorities seem to be a little bit mixed up, in my mind, hon. member. They have an ability to pay. If they have an ability to pay 16 percent, it would seem to me that they should take just a little less. If they have an ability to pay a 16 percent increase over two years, it would seem to me that teachers or anyone else who is getting paid.... The BCTF and whoever is doing the negotiating for them should take a little less and put those special-needs children a little bit higher on the priority list where they deserve to be.

We're providing the money. We're providing the funding — a large part of it. It is there. The school boards are elected bodies which can choose how to split up the pot.

I move the committee rise, report some remarkable progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, are you enjoying your birthday?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I am, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.