[ Page 2433 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Timetable for legislation. Mr. Howard –– 2433

Korean travel industry. Mr. Strachan –– 2434

Meeting on Bill 9. Mr. Blencoe –– 2434

Pipeline subsidies. Mr. Lockstead –– 2434

B.C. Place. Mr. Lauk –– 2434

Amendments to Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 23). Hon. A. Fraser.

Introduction and referral to committee of the House –– 2436

Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 2). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2437

Mr. Gabelmann –– 2440

Mr. Skelly –– 2445

Ms. Sanford –– 2448

Mrs. Wallace –– 2452

Mr. Blencoe –– 2456

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1983

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce two members of my constituency who are in your gallery this afternoon, Mr. Robert Vaughan and William Webster. I would ask the House to welcome them please.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries this afternoon I have visiting with us a good friend and fellow constituent. He also happens to be the parks and recreation director for the district of Coquitlam, as well as the head of the search and rescue division for the northeast sector. I'd ask the House to join me in making welcome Mr. Don Cunnings.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I have two guests in the gallery today: Rosemary Imlah and Fred Beruschi from the city of Revelstoke. I'd particularly like the House to note that Rosemary was the chairman of the very successful Winter Games held in the city of Revelstoke earlier this year. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, we also have in the gallery today a West Vancouver resident. I would like to welcome, on behalf of the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), Mrs. Mae Ross.

Oral Questions

TIMETABLE FOR LEGISLATION

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, particularly in light of the events that have led up to the progress that Bill 9 has made so far. Has the minister recently received or participated in the development of any plan establishing or urging the establishment of a specific timetable for the passage of legislation and other business currently before the House?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to ask the Minister of Education whether he has recently received or participated in the development of any plan establishing or urging the establishment of a specific timetable for the passage of legislation and other business currently before the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, it would appear to the Chair that the member is at this time canvassing a matter partially raised as a matter of privilege yesterday, and it is an integral part of the question that was raised yesterday. One moment, please.

Thank you, hon. members, for your indulgence. The minister in response to the question.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I really don't know the purpose or intent of the member's question. Am I involved in any particular schedule of some kind with respect to the passing of Bill 9? It's an unequivocal no. I really do not know what you're referring to. I would ask him to maybe expand for my benefit,

MR. HOWARD: The minister knows perfectly well what the purport of that question was and he skated around it and didn't reply.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No. Say it! Spit it out!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: You had your chance.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, spit it out. Don't say that stuff.

MR. HOWARD: All right. If you're that obtuse about things, I will. I asked the minister if he recently received or participated in the development of any plan establishing or urging establishment of a specific timetable for the passage of legislation and other business currently before the House.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of what he is referring to.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications whether he has recently received or participated in the development of any plan establishing or urging establishment of a specific timetable for the passage of legislation and other business currently before the House.

[2:15]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, the business of the House is determined by orders of the day. As the member well knows, every individual in this House participates in the business according to orders of the day, so I would think that the member's question is preposterous.

MR. HOWARD: Perhaps the minister didn't hear the question. I'll read it carefully. Ask him to pay attention. Has the minister recently received or participated in the development — I am asking him, not what other members might do — of any plan establishing or urging establishment of a specific timetable for the passage of legislation and other business currently before the House? That was the question.

HON. MR. McGEER: The plan for legislation is listed in Orders of the Day. The times of sitting are established by order of the House.

MR. HOWARD: That's the answer. I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications a question apropos his answer about the Orders of the Day. Would he consider it an offence then if someone went outside the concept of the orders of the day to establish such a timetable?

HON. MR. McGEER: I think that by motion of the Legislative Assembly, only the Queen's Printer is permitted to print Orders of the Day, and I would refer the member to the motions of the House and the standing orders of the House.

MR. HOWARD: I take it that the answer to the question is no.

[ Page 2434 ]

I would like to ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations in his capacity as House Leader.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Delighted. What's the question?

MR. HOWARD: The important thing, Mr. Minister, is the answer. Has the minister recently received or participated in the development of any plan establishing or urging establishment of a specific timetable for the passage of legislation and other business currently before the House?

HON. MR. GARDOM: My greatest interest, Mr. Member — and, I think, of interest to all members of the government — is to have all of the business dealt with expeditiously and properly.

MR. HOWARD: I have a supplementary question based upon the use of those last two words in the minister's reply: "and properly." Would the minister consider it proper to establish a specific timetable for the passage of legislation through this House, involving in that timetable extra sittings, closure and weekend meetings?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would have to respond to that, Mr. Member, by saying that the government has a responsibility to govern, and opposition has the responsibility to oppose but not obstruct. What we have seen in this session is nothing but obstruction from the official opposition. Eventually, Mr. Member, one can have enough of obstruction.

KOREAN TRAVEL INDUSTRY

MR. STRACHAN: A question to the Minister of Tourism. Could the minister please advise the House what anticipated benefits will accrue to the province of British Columbia in terms of tourist revenue now that travel restrictions have been lifted off of Korean nationals?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question because it will give me an opportunity to inform the House and the people of British Columbia of the situation in Korea at the moment. I am very happy to report that Korea is a very thriving, bustling country, doing very well, I might add, in world markets. Yes, they have just lifted the travel restrictions on their people, which opens up a whole new market in our industry. To that end, I attended a tourism conference in Seoul last week, which was attended by 6,000 delegates from around the world. I should inform the people of British Columbia that most other countries in the free world are marketing tourism very, very diligently and aggressively. Many of them are.taking entourages to that country far larger than ours.

I would like to sum up by saying that we had dealings with many tour operators, travel influencers and travel agents — people who move large numbers of people to British Columbia. The trip, Mr. Member, was very successful.

MEETING ON BILL 9

MR. BLENCOE: A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Will the minister advise whether he has been invited to attend a meeting scheduled for Friday, October 7, between the Premier, Patrick Kinsella and Mayor Don Ross — chairman of the GVRD — to discuss Bill 9?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such meeting.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister again: is he categorically saying that he has not agreed to a meeting on October 7 with those various people?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, the member has difficulty with his hearing. What I did say was that I am not aware of any such meeting.

PIPELINE SUBSIDIES

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Companies bidding to construct the Vancouver Island pipeline have been presented with forecasts of wholesale and retail gas prices at the Utilities Commission hearings. As the minister well knows, the companies are concerned that the forecasts require an operating subsidy separate and apart from the capital subsidy involved. What provision has the government made for operating subsidies to the Vancouver Island pipeline?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The provision of operating subsidies from the time the line is completed until the end of the century are part of the considerations that the federal government has put forward, just as they have in the trans-Quebec and Maritimes pipeline which serves eastern Canada.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A supplementary to the minister. Several of the proponents have sought guarantees from the provincial government that the costs of the construction and operation of the pipeline be covered. Has the government decided to issue any such guarantees?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It would probably be more correct to say that they have made these statements before the Utilities Commission; they have not sought, and therefore we have not decided.

B.C. PLACE

MR. LAUK: My question is to the same minister, with respect to B.C. Place. There has been a long-promised housing assistance program. Has the minister decided when he will release details of this housing assistance program for potential residents of B.C. Place?

HON. MR. ROGERS: In due course, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Recently there was a report to the B.C. Place advisory committee to the city that any housing assistance program being developed by B.C. Place, so far as they are aware, would be of no assistance to over 65 percent of Vancouver citizens who have chosen to live in the inner city. This B.C. Place citizens' advisory committee has been told that the B.C. Place housing assistance program will be useless to families earning less than $28,000 annually. Can the minister confirm this? Is this assistance program being developed simply as a subsidy for upper-income earners?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No is the simple answer; but the real answer is that until the program is totally released to the public, obviously it would be premature to comment on it. I think the preamble is incorrect, and I'd be delighted to speak to the member at a later time on it, or when the matter is to be presented.

[ Page 2435 ]

MR. LAUK: How much of the Goldberg report with respect to the development of housing in B.C. Place has the government already accepted?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I think that would follow my previous remarks: when we release the early report, we will consider that matter.

MR. LAUK: Can the government guarantee at this time that families earning less than $28,000 annually will be able to afford some housing at B.C. Place?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I would think that the design of B.C. Place is such that working Canadians can afford to live there, and that's a definition that the member may wish to differ with, but that is our stated objective. It very much depends on the amount of density that we're allowed by the Vancouver city council. The cost per housing unit very much depends on how many units are constructed per acre, because there is a significant land cost to be taken into consideration,

MR. LAUK: Does the minister approve of B.C. Place tying the density question to negotiations with the city about commercial space density questions? Does he approve of that form of blackmail?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe the question is argumentative.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning answers given during question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair has been advised of two members wishing to raise matters of privilege. In one matter, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) has afforded the Chair the courtesy of a written submission; in the other, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has informed the Chair during question period of his intent. However, hon. members, prior to hearing both those matters, a matter of privilege was raised yesterday which the Chair wishes to deal with before hearing the other two matters.

Hon. members, yesterday the member for Skeena rose on a matter of privilege, stating inter alia "that members are being menaced or threatened with a certain course of action unless they behave in a certain fashion." In support of this serious charge the member states that he has every reason to believe there exists a timetable for the passage of legislation through this House. He further alleges that House business is being regulated to accommodate the alleged timetable.

While the Chair has no specific knowledge of such a timetable, it would seem to the Chair most difficult to accept the proposition, if such a timetable existed, that this would amount to an impropriety. Indeed, it is the Chair's understanding that most parliaments attempt to conduct their affairs in an orderly manner. The Chair does not consider that a timetable in the hands of the government would menace an opposition any more than an imaginary scheme on the part of an opposition to delay government legislation would tend to menace government. In short, each side of the House is entitled to their parliamentary tactics, provided that these are conducted in accordance with the rules of the House. The Chair can find no evidence of obstruction or menacing in the material presented by the hon. member for Skeena.

There is, however another matter with which the Chair is gravely concerned. In the statement made by the member, he refers to "the actions of certain members who occupy the Chair from time to time," and implied in a grossly improper fashion that the actions of the Chair are for the purpose of serving the alleged timetable. This clearly imputes an improper motive to the Chair in relation to its decision-making responsibilities. If it is the hon. member's intention to bring this institution into disrepute, he has embarked upon an effective course, but I must assume that the member's remarks arise out of an imperfect understanding of the rules rather than to any base motive.

I feel certain the hon. member's respect for the institution of parliament will prevent him from falling into this error again, but I will caution all hon. members that the use of a matter of privilege to criticize the conduct or motives of the Chair is not acceptable. Should it arise again, the House may wish to consider an appropriate course of action.

Hon. members, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), having given written notice to the Chair, will be recognized first, followed by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).

[2:30]

MR. NICOLSON: I rise on a matter of privilege, of which I gave notice yesterday following question period.

First, with respect to the giving of notice, I refer Mr. Speaker to pages 288 and 289 of May's ninth edition in which it is abundantly clear that questions of privilege can be raised upon notice, immediately when the incident occurs or upon the next occasion of the commencement of public business. All three methods satisfy the requirements for raising the matter at the first opportunity.

The matter which I wish to raise is the following. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) if he was party to an agreement among the Council of Ministers of Education that provincial aid to students would not be reduced as a consequence of increased federal aid to students. The minister replied, and I quote: "Mr. Speaker, if the member consults his estimate book and the budget just this once — I recognize that this s is a rare and difficult matter for members opposite — he will see that the allocation for student aid last year and this year is the same, thereby answering his question."

Mr. Speaker, I submit a copy of page 66 of this year's estimates, which shows that the student financial aid has been reduced from $6,232,641 to $5,256,000. Page 138 of May's eighteenth edition says: "The House may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt." If Your Honour should find that a prima facie case of contempt exists, I am prepared to move the following motion, a copy of which I have given to Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, firstly may I compliment the member for affording the Chair the courtesy of written notice. Secondly, hon. member, regarding the matter of privilege, the Chair will reserve judgment on the matter, bringing the finding back to the House at the earliest opportunity without prejudice to the member's case.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of privilege, obviously I was not able to give you any prior notice except verbally, because it arose during question period. Could 1, in a few seconds before I get to the question of privilege, indicate to Your

[ Page 2436 ]

Honour with respect to the comment about your earlier ruling about the question of privilege I raised yesterday, and draw to the attention of the House that there is a notice of motion on the order paper in my name dealing with the decision made by Mr. Speaker some time ago that I cannot get before the House. The government refuses to let it come before the House.

The question of privilege I want to raise now relates to answers given to questions that I posed during question period. The answer from the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) to that question was no; I want to submit that that is an incorrect answer. The answer from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) was no to the specific question I asked him. I want to indicate that that is an incorrect and false answer. The answers from the Ministers of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) circumvented the question and gave the House misleading information, and that is my question of privilege. I want to indicate that there does exist a secret master plan, and I am prepared to table two memoranda about that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Clearly, at this stage the member is straying somewhat from a matter of privilege, which must be stated briefly. It must include the facts and not be the part of debate, hon. members. The member has canvassed this particular area on sufficient occasions that he must be familiar with the rules, which are very strict. I would ask him now to....

MR. HOWARD: The facts are that I asked questions and got "no" for an answer from two ministers; those answers were inaccurate and misleading. I am prepared to table a memorandum dated September 27, 1983, prepared by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, setting out a secret master plan and a timetable planning to invoke closure, edited in the minister's handwriting. I am also prepared to table, and will table, another memorandum, the revised edition, signed with the name "Pat" over the name of the minister, indicating that there is a plan setting a schedule for completing the session by October 29. It says so right in here, talking about closure and slippage.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair asks for order. I ask the member only to take a brief breath, while the Chair says that since the member is going to be tabling the document, it would be most inappropriate to continue to expand upon it in detail, hon. member. The member has made his point, and now must get to the actual point of privilege, which will be....

MR. HOWARD: The point of privilege is that two ministers lied to this House and two others circumvented the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We cannot do by one means, hon. member, what we cannot do by another; therefore I must ask the member to withdraw the terminology....

MR. HOWARD: Out of respect for the Chair I will withdraw the use of that word "lie," but as soon as I get out in the corridor I will repeat it again, because that is exactly what they did.

MR. SPEAKER: That's the member's privilege outside this House; it is not inside.

MR. HOWARD: That is exactly what Dr. Strangelove did too — he is so appropriately named.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, hon. member. We are in the middle of a point of privilege.

MR. HOWARD: I am trying to table them. I am trying to get the documents to the table. No one will come and get them.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the documentation may be forwarded to the Chair as backup to the motion, but it cannot at this time be tabled as such. The member has submitted the information to the Chair and would be prepared to move the appropriate motion should the Chair find on the....

MR. HOWARD: I would move an appropriate motion of condemnation against this crowd, with their secret master plan.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I would remind all members possibly to remind themselves of the very real chairs that they occupy and the chamber in which those chairs are located.

AMENDMENTS TO MOTOR
VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

On behalf of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), Hon. Mr. Gardom presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to Bill 23, intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1983.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 23.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 2, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2437 ]

PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR RELATIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. MR. CHABOT: I wish to move second reading of Bill 2, Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1983. Before discussing some of the more detailed aspects of this bill, I want to touch just briefly on how this government sees this bill fitting in with previous discussions we've had to date around the throne speech, the budget and second reading of other bills. We have talked about the economic climate, the problems presented by the past and the challenges we expect this province to face in the immediate future. We have repeated many times this government's commitment to help the private sector regain their position as the leading agents for economic growth. We have talked about what the role of government should not be and about what the costs are when government intrudes where it does not belong.

Now in Bill 2 — indeed in Bill 3 and other acts such as the Public Service Act — we are talking about the government and its role as a manager of provincial significance, a manager operating under the same constraints as all other managers. Just as the private sector is constrained by market conditions, so too is the government in its management function.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The public has shown that it is unwilling to provide more money to fund government programs. The government has been told to manage its enterprise with less. While Bill 3 addresses the issue of how government is to be made smaller, Bill 2 addresses the issue of how this smaller government can be made more efficient and effective. In this bill the government asks that certain management prerogatives which have been eroded over the last ten years be restored, so that government can get on with the business of providing the public with the services they demand and in the most efficient way possible.

Having laid the general foundation for discussion, I would now like to look more closely at this bill. First, we need to remember that government is unique in having such an act as the Public Service Labour Relations Act governing its bargaining process. Prior to 1972 this was not the case. Conditions of employment and rates of remuneration for public service employees were established unilaterally by the government. In 1972 the government of the day established the commission of inquiry to examine a report on the state of employer-employee relations in the public service of British Columbia. The commission of inquiry, while suggesting that the scope of bargaining be as broad as possible, recommended that the merit principle in the recruitment of staff, the pension plan and the application of the classification system not be subject to negotiation.

When Bill 75 was introduced in 1973, it was obvious that the government of the day had accepted the recommendation of the commission of inquiry, and the three items identified found their way into the legislation as excluded items. However, in addition to these items, the scope of bargaining in the public service was further limited in that the organization, establishment and administration of the departments of government, plus cross-ministry training programs, joined the list of items that were excluded from the collective bargaining process. It is important to remember, therefore, that when collective bargaining rights were extended to employees in the public service, the Legislature saw fit that certain items should remain the prerogatives of the Crown.

This situation was in no way unique to the province of British Columbia. In all but one jurisdiction in Canada the framework of collective bargaining in the public service was established in separate legislation. In these other jurisdictions, to a greater or lesser degree, there are restrictions on what can be included in a collective agreement. One can reasonably assume that there is a general acceptance of the principle that the Crown is a unique employer, and as such, must retain certain items in its prerogative. This is the principle on which collective bargaining was introduced into the public service of British Columbia, and on which the existing legislation was structured.

In the present legislation there are five items, some aspects of which are considered inappropriate for collective bargaining: (1) the staffing process; (2) pensions; (3) organization establishment and administration; (4) classification; and (5) training. What is the effect on this list of items of the bill now before the House? The basic framework of collective bargaining is not changed. These five basic subject areas remain, as before, exempt. The amendments are designed to define and clarify the Crown's prerogative in these five general areas. It would be incorrect to categorize the amendment as a departure from the concept under which collective bargaining was introduced into the public service.

In 1973 the Legislature recognized that in the circumstances of the time certain items should remain outside bargaining. Today the Legislature is being asked to consider the framework in light of today's situation. Today public servants have, for the most part, gained very generous packages of wages and benefits, often far in excess of their private sector counterparts. In the process, employees have asked for evergreater control of what had before been considered management rights. The parties have negotiated and argued over who should be working where, when and how, and it has been forgotten that public funds are at stake and that public services are being affected. That is why we need this bill, a bill which amends the act which originally gave the negotiating powers to the public service. It is time once again to rethink the employer-employee relationship, as was done ten years ago. Although it is evident that the purpose of these amendments is to restore to government certain management prerogatives that will ensure an effective and efficient public service, I hasten to point out that the principles of collective bargaining provided to government employees will continue to serve as an effective method by which employees and the government communicate in order to reach agreement on fundamental employment conditions.

[2:45]

Collective agreements continue to provide trade unions the right to negotiate on behalf of their membership in many significant areas. First, these include wage rates for all categories of jobs, and any additional employment benefits such as group life and dental plans enjoyed by government employees. Secondly, the collective agreement will continue to address the question of annual hours of work, including vacation entitlement and overtime. Other examples of important areas for discussion in the collective bargaining process include union recognition, grievance and arbitration procedures, special leave and work premiums, workers' safety, transfer and living allowances, and salary protection.

[ Page 2438 ]

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, collective agreements will continue to serve as the principal vehicle for the government and its employees to lay out the basic framework for their contract of employment. The agreements will continue to be the place where the most important issues related to wages, benefits and average working hours are laid down. However, it is the Legislature which must decide what government spending levels will be and what programs will flow from this. Government managers must have the ability to run their organizations in line with these democratically expressed wishes.

In good times, when there are a lot of dollars available, a certain level of inefficiency can creep into any organization and goals can still be met despite waste. However, the public has asked for a leaner and more efficient government. To achieve this we are emphasizing what prerogatives belong with management and what with the employee, what is bargainable and what, in the public interest, is not. Mr. Speaker, this amendment changes section 13 of the act to address what should be on the bargaining table. It does not in any way diminish the right of the union to bargain wages and benefits. It is up to management to describe the classes of jobs that need to be done in order to best give effect to the government program for the year, and to describe how these jobs will be organized. It is up to the union to bargain what employees should be paid to do these jobs, what the jobs are worth. This amendment addresses these two basic roles and restores the balance. Each section addresses a different aspect of this balance.

Section 13(1)(a) of the amendment addresses the question of recruitment and appointment of employees to the public service. It is quite clear that in section 20 of the act this function is given exclusively to the Public Service Commission. However, during negotiations in 1977 agreement was reached to include, for information purposes only, references to specific non-negotiable aspects of the Public Service Commissions' appointment policy in the collective agreement. Although acceptable to the largest union, the BCGEU, the nurses' bargaining unit resisted this approach and challenged the employer's position at the Labour Relations Board. The board ruled that several clauses relating to the staffing process previously agreed to by the BCGEU as not negotiable were in fact negotiable. Such matters include the posting procedures for vacancies in government service and the makeup selection panels convened in accordance with the Public Service Act. These matters became part of the collective agreement with the nurses' union, and now form part of the negotiated agreement of the BCGEU.

Therefore, to clarify that the staffing process has never been considered a negotiable issue, this amendment removes any reference to section 20. It is intended to clarify the fact that the appointment procedure is driven by the principle of merit and stands outside the bargaining process. This is a clarification and not a change from the current act. The principle was in place long before collective bargaining.

I should also note that this amendment deals with general management practices, and that it is not intended in this section that, for example, the appeal process would be affected in the event that an individual employee feels they have been wronged. While the union has never had the right of grievance to a third party regarding hiring and promotion, it has had, and will continue to have, rights to participate in the procedures applying the factors of merit. But this is spelled out in section 20. In summary, selection procedures are governed by another part of the act, and these amendments ensure that the merit principle, in its application by the Public Service Commission, remains as a non-bargainable issue.

In section 13(1)(c), Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with the heart of management itself. The three key words of the section remain as before, and address the right of government to organize and to establish ministries and branches as required, and to administer these units so that government programs and policies are delivered in an effective and efficient manner. However, it has been necessary to clarify what we mean when we say "administer."

Let me digress for a minute so that I can give you an example of how our arbitration process over the last few years has looked at the word "administer." In a 1982 decision, because of the reference in section 13 to what is bargainable, the Labour Relations Board struck down an earlier ruling by saying that shift scheduling and rotation, and related matters concerning hours of work, are not clearly and traditionally matters of management within the meaning of the term "administration." This was in spite of the fact that the original adjudicator had stated:

"While section 13(c) does not expressly prohibit matters of shift scheduling and shift rotation from being included in a collective agreement, in the context of the issue before me I find them administrative matters. In order to facilitate operational requirements, management must have the flexibility to decide how many employees will be on which shift at which time. I suggest this case is a classic example of what the Legislature wanted to avoid happening: that is, management as an institution seeking to revise a program in the interests of patient care, only to be thwarted by the terms of the collective agreement."

Clearly the right of management to administer has been seen in a very limited perspective. We have attempted in this amendment to spell out more directly what we mean by "administer."

Firstly, we mean the right of management to establish and eliminate positions. If management is to change with the changing times, it must have some flexibility. Managers must be able to ask: "Is a position or a group of positions still relevant? Is there a new public need that requires a different mix of skills?" It should be noted that sections 18 through 20 of the act lay down how management must deal with the impact of technological change, and these sections remain.

Secondly, and in a similar vein, management needs to be able to modify existing positions to meet new demands, whether of a permanent or temporary nature. For example, in arbitration, the Labour Relations Board awarded a new provision, which said in part: "The employer will make every reasonable effort to ensure that the workload of an employee covered by this agreement shall not be increased as a result of positions temporarily vacant due to illness, vacation, leave of absence, or any other reason." What can management do under these circumstances? Must it hire a new person when someone goes home sick for the afternoon? Does the management say to the public: "I'm sorry, we're not offering this service today"?

Thirdly, and importantly, we need to address the issue of work scheduling. We should recognize at the outset that through collective bargaining a process has been established to ensure that the employer would not be unreasonable in establishing schedules of work. This amendment does not affect a number of important constraints on management, including the number of hours the employee is to work in a

[ Page 2439 ]

year. That figure of 1,827 hours has been negotiated and is a part of the master agreement that is not affected by this amendment. Nor does it affect the fact that employees will still be working an average of 35 hours per week, a workweek that is among the best in the province, or vacation entitlement.

All these remain as important bargainable issues. However, within these constraints managers need the right to schedule work in a manner that is conducive to an efficient public service and that meets the needs of the people of this province. At present we have a system where increasingly the employees determine when and for how long they will work; when they will start and finish their shift; how the shifts will be organized; and, by inference, how much overtime will have to be funded by the public purse.

In 1979 an arbitration board made a precedent- setting award. This award purported to reduce the weekly hours of work from 37.5 to 35 for the nurses and psychiatric nurses employed directly by the province of British Columbia. However, in a supplemental award dated December 7, 1979, the board clarified that the daily work hours for these nurses would remain unchanged, so that on a daily basis they would accumulate a bank of time which could later be taken in the form of time off work with pay. Thus, the award did more than reduce annual hours of work; it introduced a new scheduling provision in the form of earned time off and thereby restricted management's discretion in work scheduling.

Let me repeat: the employer wanted to reduce the number of hours worked and the arbitrator said no, the employee is to work longer hours and will have extra time off instead. So we have cases where employees are working longer than necessary in a given time period. They are banking time which is then taken off, causing additional staff to be hired at considerable extra expense, or leading to a reduction in service for the days the employees are away. In a reverse of that situation, some employees are working four days a week when the public requires the service five days a week. Sometimes it is to both the employer's and the employee's advantage to agree to flexible work arrangements. Nothing in this amendment would stop such an agreement being reached. However, where it is clearly not in the public interest, either for cost or service reasons, then management must be able to schedule work appropriately.

In other rulings it has been found in a particular group (1) that time spent in training courses is part of hours worked; (2) that employees must be allowed paid meal periods in spite of the board’s acknowledging that these were "a very significant cost factor" — in fact, about $600,000 in 1976 dollars; (3) that there must be an 81/4 hour day to provide for an overlap between shifts, despite uncontested evidence that the employer's proposal to do away with the extra 15 minutes per shift would result in an annual saving of about $300,000 and that the purpose of the shift overlap was not needed by many of the employees. In fact, we have had 17 formal arbitration awards on the subject of work scheduling since 1978, at an average cost of $3,725 per award and an average hearing time of 2.5 days.

In addition, there have been 232 hours of work-umpire hearings since 1980 at a total billed cost of over $100,000.

The Ministry of Transportation and Highways has been party to 102 hours of work umpire hearings, none of which was filed at the request of the ministry and none of which was initiated in the interest of increased cost savings or productivity. For example, in the paving branch employees were working a 7.5 hour day; the private sector paving contractor advised he was going to an 8.5 hour shift in order to complete the contract before the weather changed. Because inspection of the contractor's work was done as work monitored by ministry officials, a change in hours of operation by the contractor required a change in hours of operation by the ministry. The umpire found that the employer's concern was a monetary one. The ministry wanted to minimize overtime costs and maximize employment, and the umpire did not accept monetary costs as a bona fide reason for changing the work schedule. I think this is a good example of the problems the ministries face under the present contract language when they attempt to increase productivity and — or — to decrease costs.

[3:00]

I would like finally to address the ability of management to determine programs and services and the method of their delivery. Program determination and establishment must remain the sole prerogative of the Legislature. Government managers are made accountable through the minister for how well they interpret the wishes of the Legislature. This is not a subject for the bargaining process; this section clarifies what is already accepted in all jurisdictions: that no bargaining process should he able to fetter government policy. The amendment to section 13(1)(c) will clarify what has been one of the main sources of confusion and debate over the last ten years, and will go a long way toward restoring the balance between manager and employee.

In section 13(1)(d), we again come up against the need for managers to have a clear mandate and more flexibility to establish and run a system of classifying and evaluating jobs. I should note at the outset that the BCGEU has categorically stated that it will not agree to any change in classification that involves downgrading. In addition, even when there is no downgrading involved, managers are frustrated and delayed in their attempts to get change. Since the mid 1970s there have been many examples — ranging from inspectors of boilers through medical technologists to stockmen and health care workers — of management attempting to gain union concurrence with reclassification schemes.

The present system is not responsive enough. Other jurisdictions have recognized this problem. Classification is completely excluded from the negotiation process in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the federal government. Once again, we face a basic management right that has been eroded over time. It needs to be clearly shown that the government considers it a non-negotiable issue.

Finally, in section 2 we reaffirm that the unions will decide what these classifications should be worth. The union can also negotiate a process to review an individual employee's position within that system.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate that this government is committed to showing the leadership necessary in these restrainted times. In Bill 2 we speak to our role as managers of the public enterprise. We expect our managers to run the most efficient public service possible and still maintain our legislative programs. They need the tools to do this. They need to know where the accountability begins and ends. I think that in this bill we have given them the tools they need to go out and meet the challenge being given them.

I now move second reading.

[ Page 2440 ]

MR. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, Hansard is unable to keep up, and there are no Blues — there is a delay. The minister read extensively from a text, verbatim, and I would ask the minister if he would table his speech so we are better able to respond to his comments.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, with respect to my point of order, I might just add that we would normally have access to Blues shortly after, to per-use the minister's speech. In this instance we will probably be denied any verbatim transcript of his remarks for the duration of debate on this bill. In that respect, I would ask you to urge the minister to table his speech so that we are able to respond to it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On that point, Mr. Speaker, I think it is common knowledge — at least for the members of this assembly — that the Blues are not ready immediately. Historically they appear in due course. After a minister moves second reading of a bill in the House, a member of the opposition responds. Sometimes adjournments are accepted by this side when the legislation has not been before the House for a long time. But this legislation has been before the House since July 7, my friend. You have had ample opportunity to examine the significance of what this legislation effectively does; you've had three months. If you've had three months to look at the legislation, you don't necessarily need my speech notes forthwith in order to respond. You must have some semblance of an idea as to what precisely the legislation does. Are you unprepared after three months, my friend?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The minister is now entering into debate.

Let me make two observations. The minister is quite correct that the Blues, the unofficial record of Hansard, even at the best of times is not available immediately following a minister's speech to any other member of this House. Secondly, the rule with respect to tabling material is enforced when a minister has in fact quoted from an official state document. The minister has simply referred to speaking notes, not an official state document. It is not up to the Chair to enforce tabling of any speech notes. The minister may wish to do this, but the Chair cannot enforce it.

MR. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister quoted verbatim. It wasn't speech notes; it was an entire transcript that he read into the record of this House. I am saying to that minister — through you, Mr. Speaker — that he identified and articulated the basic principles by which the government is proceeding on this bill and the arguments put forward. If he is for some reason afraid to put forward the arguments, if he's ashamed of his arguments, we understand.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now you are entering into debate.

MR. HANSON: But out of courtesy to the House.... The fact is that undoubtedly we will be sitting all night tonight. There will probably be closures this evening, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, to give us an opportunity to respond before closure comes in, he should file....

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Not at all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The first member for Victoria will please take his place. The matter has been dealt with by the Chair. The Chair has no power to enforce the tabling of speech notes, and I think that's clear. If the members wish, I will give citations from Sir Erskine May. The minister may wish to deliver his speech notes to other members of this assembly, but the Chair has no power to enforce that.

Now, are you ready for the question or do members wish to debate on this bill? I see we have a member who wishes to speak. The motion for second reading now having been passed, debate now opens and....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the minister to withdraw that statement. It's unparliamentary. An unqualified and brief withdrawal, Mr. Minister. I'd like to hear the withdrawal.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I'm shocked and dismayed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, a withdrawal please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll withdraw...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, that settles that problem.

HON. MR .CHABOT: ...that the member is a pygmy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Withdraw.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's what I did. I withdraw that the member is a pygmy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, an unqualified withdrawal.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I said I would withdraw that the member is a pygmy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, hon. member. I don't know how many times we're going to have to go through this. The member will simply say "I withdraw," and then not I repeat the offending statement. Will the minister so do?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

Now, on debate, the member for North Island.

MR. GABELMANN: The first observation I want to make about this legislation is that it demonstrates clearly to everyone in this province that the government has failed in its ability to manage. That is what Bills 2, 3, and 11 basically say to the public. They say, and this bill in particular says, that the government and its hired negotiators have been unable to secure the kind of collective agreements that they feel are desirable in this province.

[ Page 2441 ]

That is the very first thing. The other thing I want to say at this point is that in light of the fact that Monday morning a meeting was held in the Premier's office, and that further discussions have clearly taken place at some level about the possibility of at least discussing, if not negotiating, the legislative package before this House this fall, it seems strange to me that the government would make a decision to introduce for debate this week, at this time and in this context, Bill 2. What it does is to say to those people out there who are legitimately trying to have some kind of dialogue with the government that the government wants no dialogue with them. It is not my job to make arguments which members of the unions that are in negotiations will be making with the employer through GERB. I don't intend to make those kinds of arguments in discussing this bill. Although quite clearly it would be in order to do that, I think it would inappropriate for members of this Legislature. What is appropriate, however, is to discuss the principle that the government sees itself as an employer unlike all other employers, and that it needs special legislative legal protection because it can't bargain these things as everybody in the private sector has to do.

We hear time and time again from members on that side of the House that what we need in this province is a return to more of the private sector; that the government needs to emulate the private sector. Yet when it comes to bargaining with workers, they don't want to do what the private sector does. Can you imagine the pulp mill in Campbell River, or any other industrial operation in this province, going to the government and saying: "We want provisions in the labour relations act that deny our workers the right to bargain for certain things," including wages under Bill 11, layoffs, termination notices and seniority under Bill 3, and the various proposals which we'll come to shortly under Bill 2? Can you imagine any respected private sector employer having the audacity to ask for those kinds of provisions?

The minister made some lengthy reference to the procedure that led to the development of the Public Service Labour Relations Act in 1972-73. I was quite involved in that process, not so much on the floor of the House but in discussions with the minister at that time, Mr. Ernie Hall. I remember making the argument with him — though I did not make it on the floor of the House — that I couldn't understand why there needed to be two separate labour relations acts in this province, one for one group of employees and another for another group of employees. Why is it that we require different rules, and why is it we create different classes of citizenship when it comes to labour relations? Why can't all the workers in this province be covered under the Labour Code? That would be fair. Put teachers and public service workers into that group and other public sector....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: That's my position. I said a minute ago that I am not here arguing anybody's brief but my own. Okay? My own view of the matter.... That's what I'm elected to do, to present my view.

MR. R. FRASER: What about the people?

MR. GABELMANN: The people have elected me. In a representative democracy, if the member had learned anything in grade 11 social studies when we went — if he did — he would have learned that people elect their representatives and trust them to make some decisions on their behalf. If they don't like those decisions, they'll unelect them at the next election.

I'm arguing, Mr. Speaker, that what the government is doing and what this bill succeeds in doing even more is to say to those public sector workers who work for the government itself that they are in a different category from those public sector workers who work for a Crown corporation or for a whole variety of other employers in this province in indirect government service. It also makes clear that those people who work directly for the government of the province itself have different rights than all the people in the private sector. Mr. Speaker, if the government feels the need to enact that kind of legislation, then what the government is saying is that it doesn't have the ability to go to the bargaining table like all other private sector employers do and negotiate those things. That's where it should happen.

[3:15]

We shouldn't he debating this bill, which denies basic trade union rights — basic rights contained in the International Labour Organization's philosophy and standards. Especially we shouldn't be doing it in the week that bargaining begins. The government is saying specifically and directly, although it won't put it into words, that it wants a confrontation with its employees. It wants there to be civil strife and confrontation in this province. There have been no responses indicating any kind of olive branch in return to olive branches that have been offered from people out there who are concerned not just about this bill but about a lot of other legislation. Why can't we have cooperation in this province? Why is it always confrontation? The minister in presenting this bill reminds me that he was the minister who introduced the mediation commission act some years back.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: That's right. I remember now. But you were the heavy and you liked it.

But it's interesting that the times that we've had industrial unrest and strife in this province have been times when the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has been in chairs that lead to that kind of situation. I remember well the days during the mediation commission act when — if it was not as bad as today — we were leading up to industrial unrest that didn't serve anybody's purpose. It didn't serve the workers' purpose, the public's purpose or the government's purpose. We're now in the same situation here. Why introduce this bill right in the middle of an opportunity that's been presented this week for some discussions? It may be that following discussions and the opportunity that was evidently presented by the Premier or his deputy, these things could be discussed in a standing committee of the House. Why not do that? Why not take advantage of those kinds of olive branches to try to cool down the inflamed climate that exists out there in the community? Mr. Speaker, when I ask myself that question — why the government would pursue this legislation in this way, at this time, without discussion and without consultation — the only answer I can come up with is that this government is determined to have unrest out there so that they can come down with a heavy hand and appear as the saviour and protector of the public. That is the only possible reason for what they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I did take some notes of the minister's speech knowing that even if there were Blues I wouldn't have

[ Page 2442 ]

been able to refer to them, because I'm the first speaker following the minister. Let me just say in passing that if the government's definition of "in due course" were to apply, and the Blues were to come out "in due course" we wouldn't have Hansard in this province, because "in due course" means "never" as far as the government is concerned, from all the answers that come in question period.

In the first part of the minister's speech, he talked about efficiency and effective management. Do you know what I was thinking about while he was talking about the need for the government to be a more efficient and effective manager? A leader in Italy talked about the most important thing being that the trains ran on time — damn all the other consequences, but make those trains run on time. I'm not suggesting that this government is necessarily analogous to the Mussolini government in Italy in the early 1920s. But that argument is analogous to their argument. The argument that what counts above all else is efficiency and effectiveness is the same argument that Mussolini made about the trains. Obviously trains were a symbolic issue. He wasn't talking just about that but about a wide variety of facets of Italian life at that time.

I've got no quarrel with efficiency and effective management, but I sure as heck have a quarrel with the way in which the government attempts to develop that efficiency. It seems to me that if you want people working for you who are also working with you, then you have to cooperate with them. If you want people working for you who in effect are not working with you, do what you're doing. What you're doing and what you're trying to accomplish — for God knows what reason, because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to anybody that I've ever talked to — is to make sure that the public service is dispirited angry, bitter and fearful. What kind of productivity can be achieved when workers feel threatened in those ways? What kind of management goals can be reached when the people who have to put those goals into practice and into place are fearful of their jobs and fearful that the union isn't going to be strong enough to represent them any longer, as a result of this bill and others, and are worried about their income and security?

The government makes a big deal about making it the same as the private sector. But we're not making it the same as the private sector, because the private sector employers don't have these restrictions. To digress for just a second — and I appreciate that I will be hinting about another....

MR. REID: They have the marketplace to deal with.

MR. GABELMANN: That's right, and so does the government have the marketplace to deal with, because the taxpayer is the consumer.

MR. REID: The ability to pay is the problem.

MR. GABELMANN: That's right. And if you feel you can't provide the level of service that you have been providing, then you have layoffs. Nobody is arguing against layoffs and due-course terminations under seniority provisions. There is a world of difference between layoffs and terminations, yet the government has been deliberately, I think, making that issue fuzzy. I watched the CBC news last night on TV and I saw the announcer talk about the government layoffs — the 1,600 so far and the others that might be threatened. Those aren't layoffs; those are terminations.

There is the world of difference. There are layoffs every week in my riding in the private sector, whether it's at the pulp mill or the sawmill, or in the woods. Layoffs happen constantly. But the workers who are laid off are laid off in an orderly manner, under a process that they've agreed to, and they're recalled in that same orderly manner — under a process they've agreed to.

The union doesn't say: "We're going to treat all 40,000 woodworkers in this province as a unit, and you have to have seniority applying right across the board, so that if somebody who works setting chokers in Woss Camp has more seniority than a greenchain operator on the Fraser River, then the seniority of the guy in Woss Camp counts." The seniority provisions apply by district, operation or unit, whatever word you want to use. The same thing can apply in the government. If a sawmill wants to close down forever, it can lay off its workers, and if that employer goes back in, there will be some negotiated arrangement for some — probably not all — of those workers to go back. If the government wants to lay off a particular program, like a sawmill, in the case of the human rights branch — I don't agree with that decision, but if they want to they can — the process for achieving that is through negotiation with the employees, in exactly the same way as it's done between FIR and the fWA in the woods, and between other employers and employees in other sectors of the economy. So why does the government need these special rights and privileges? Because they want to be more effective and they want to manage. I haven't got the exact words of the minister, because I couldn't write them all down, but the burden of those earlier remarks was that efficiency and effectiveness were the primary goal.

I guess I've made the point, and I'll just say it again: if the minister is concerned about the inability of his managers in the government service to manage effectively and efficiently, then what he is doing is further impairing that ability, because the people who work for those managers are not going to feel particularly cooperative in this climate and with these approaches. The stated goals can't be achieved by the methods and courses of action that are being proposed by the government. They can't achieve those efficiencies unless they want to run an old-fashioned, dictatorial, top-down, non-cooperative public service, in which people, because of high unemployment, which the government also likes because it keeps the threat on those people.... They'll go back to those old days.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Back to 1973. We want to go back to the legislation as it was introduced in 1973; that's about all.

MR. GABELMANN: If I thought that was the case, Mr. Speaker, I would still disagree with it, but I wouldn't do it so vehemently.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's all we're asking for.

MR. GABELMANN: It's not what you're asking for. The legislation in 1973 didn't give to a deputy minister or to a manager the unilateral right to set hours of work, or to schedule all of the time off, different hours, lieu days, vacation days or days of rest. The legislation in 1973 did not give managers and deputy ministers those rights. This bill does, without negotiation or consultation. The legislation in 1973 didn't give the manager the right to refuse overtime, to make all kinds of decisions about the way in which the workplace

[ Page 2443 ]

day and the workplace year are ordered for employees. It didn't give those rights. This bill does.

Job evaluation is something that has been denied as a result of this bill. The whole process of going through the job evaluation procedures is one of the most important things that happen in the course of events between employers and employees through the union and the industrial relations department of the employers. Without the right for job classification to be negotiated, the implication is clear that classifications can be imposed without consultation, and when reclassification can be imposed without consultation, people's money can be changed and the nature of their work can be changed, the hours of their work can be changed and the location of their work can be changed, along with a whole variety of other elements — without consultation. I need to emphasize this point: nobody argues that there doesn't need to be some of these rights in the process. But the process must involve discussion, It must involve negotiation. The tragic mistake that the government is making is that it doesn't understand that.

[3:30]

I'm just reviewing the notes I made on the minister's speech. I don't think I'll refer to them any further, other than to say that it was a pitiful, bleating request for management rights that have long, long disappeared in our society, and thank God they have disappeared.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The right to administer — that's all we're asking for.

MR. GABELMANN: The right to administer is a fair right, but it needs to be in consultation with the people who are being administered. That is the essential issue. All the verbiage aside, all the political comments aside, all the language of the bill aside, the essential principle, the essential issue that is being raised in this debate is whether managers govern or administer by a divine right which allows them to do whatever they want without consultation or whether they involve their employees in the process so there is more harmony and more effectiveness. In my view, that is a basic difference.

I see, as an MLA, examples of both kinds of managers in the private sector in my riding. I see that the places where they have trouble, where they have wildcats, the place where they have low production, are the places where the managers take the view that they have an unfettered right to administer, an unfettered right to manage. The other operations — and I can go through them specifically.... I think I'd be a wee bit out of order to do that in too much detail, but I could go through them specifically naming various companies and various managers. The ones who get good production, the ones who don't have wildcats, the ones who have a workforce that is more useful to the company's objectives — often smaller, getting the same kind of results — are those operations where the company policy is: "We will cooperate."

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

You only have to take a look at the difference between the operations at B.C. Timber's mill in Prince Rupert and the pulp mill in Gold River. No one in the public ever hears of industrial unrest, work stoppages or any of those kinds of things coming out of the pulp mill in Gold River. Why? Because the management there has historically consulted, and it continues now to consult with its workers. It has all kinds of processes by which it has consultations over layoffs, over scheduling, over the whole range of things which this bill denies to people in the public sector. They get good production. They've go' no problems. They have one of the best labour-management relationships I have seen in this province — a very strong union.

HON. MR. CHABOT: They would react the same way as us. If we wanted an employee to come to work at 9 a.m. and they say they're going to come at noon, we should have the right to say they come at 9 a.m., not them telling us they're coming at noon.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister makes my argument. The mill at Gold River makes those kinds of decisions, together with the employees, about what time they are going to come to work....

HON. MR. CHABOT: We don't have those rights here.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister persists in his interjections in arguing that his managers are so ineffective and so unable to manage that they need more rights than do the managers at the pulp mill in Gold River. I don't think the managers are that bad; in fact, there is an excellent management group in the public service. What they don't have is the political leadership from their employer, especially from the Provincial Secretary.

What's wrong with sitting down and bargaining the framework at the bargaining table, and then continuing that negotiating process throughout the course of the term of that collective agreement? I don't know any employee — you might find one or two, but in terms of the vast bulk of the many employees — or any union representative who would disagree with needing to make the workplace productive, as long as it's not a sweatshop. No one's going to disagree with that. And when a particular office is closed, say in Comox, and the next available job is in Nanaimo, Victoria or Fort St. John, no one's going to argue that the job in Comox should be maintained if the office is no longer there. It may have been a wrong decision to close the office, but the workers involved aren't going to say: "We believe it should be that worker's right to be allowed to continue to work in Comox forever." No one in their right mind is going to make those kinds of arguments, but they sure will if they're faced with this kind of legislation. They wouldn't if they had an opportunity to sit down and talk about it and negotiate those terms. A lot of those terms exist in the collective agreement. I'm not going to go through either the PEA or BCGEU agreements with GERB, but those provisions exist.

I think the government's decision of the government isn't so much that it wants an ability to manage better, but that it wants to create confrontation. It sees that there's some political value and that they can gain some political mileage out of appearing to be against the public service, who in this day and age for some reason have a bad public image. And since a majority of the public wrongly feels — or appears to feel — that the public service doesn't give an honest day's work, the government has decided to use that attitude for its own political advantage, and I find that quite despicable, to say the least.

The fact is that any of us who work with public servants, as MLAs do more than most, know that for the overwhelming

[ Page 2444 ]

most part public servants — I hate the word "servants," but public service people — put in far more than they get paid for, the so-called 35-hour week. Most of the public servants that I deal with in North Island are working 40, 50 or 60 hours a week trying to do the job that they're being asked to do, but they can't get it done in the limited hours in the negotiated workweek simply because they don't have enough staff. I don't know a conservation officer in North Island who works under 40 hours a week; they all work more. And so do public servants in just about every other area of the government service that I run into on a day-to-day basis; you always find them at work after working hours.

Do you know what's going to happen with this kind of legislation? You're not going to find them there any more. They're going to get angry, bitter and fearful, and who's served by that? Is the government or its managers served? Are the taxpayers served if the public service is so threatened and maligned that its "productivity" goes down, although in many cases I don't know how you measure the productivity.

Mr. Speaker, Section 13(1)(d) deals with.... I'm not going to tread into the committee stage debate, but the minister did go through, by section, some of the implications of the bill, so I want to do the same, although I will save for committee stage a more detailed analysis of the implications of each of the sections. What 13(1)(d) does is take the question of job evaluation and classification away from the Public Service Commission and put it into the hands of cabinet. That's basically what you do when you deny the right of bargaining in job evaluation and classification. You say that no longer will the Public Service Commission have that authority; rather, cabinet gets it. It's yet another example of the kind of centralization, in the cabinet rooms, of power which quite properly belongs in a more democratized and decentralized system.

The Higgins commission worked very hard at making sure that the Public Service Commission would be independent and would not be seen to have any political interference from cabinet, or any other kind of political interference. And in developing the legislation it spent a lot of time ensuring that the Public Service Commission would be independent. One of the reasons GERB was established a bit later was to further enhance that independence. If the chairman isn't doing his job and you could prove it, you could fire him.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Chairman of the Public Service Commission. I thought you were talking about GERB; I'm sorry. You can fire the chairman of GERB, but that's not what we're talking about. The minister didn't bring in a bill making the chairman of the Public Service Commission answerable to the cabinet. That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that the powers of the Public Service Commission are being diminished by this bill, and they are being made political. I think that is the beginning of the end for an independent public service commission. When you combine that with the kinds of decisions that are being made, and that I expect to see much more of in the future, where public service jobs are being made by cabinet.... No order-in-council jobs, not political jobs, which we all agree should be made by cabinet, but public service jobs being made by cabinet. Of course, the famous example of that is Tony Tozer and the government agent's job in Kelowna. That kind of authority to cabinet, taking it away from the Public Service Commission, I think....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: It was a political decision. We'll have this kind of debate during committee. It's a bit difficult now. One of the reasons the rules of the House do not allow interjections is because for the most part the interjections are not recorded. Often they're not heard completely accurately, and it leads to a kind of crossfire debate that committee stage is more appropriate for. Like many others in this House, I would get through my comments more quickly if we didn't have the kinds of interjections that the minister is indulging in.

I'll just conclude that thought: the idea that the Public Service Commission is in my view — and I think independent observers would agree — having its independence and neutrality further diminished by this legislation.

Section 13(1)(a) and the whole question of merit. At the present time at least there is some consultative definition of what merit is. I haven't been an employer that often, but I have sat in situations where I have had to take on some of the roles of an employer, and I've come to my own conclusions about the relative merit of an individual who happens to be working in the office or at that location. I have come to those conclusions on my own, as a manager would under this legislation, and then have sat down with the person involved and discovered that I didn't know the whole story; that there was a lot more to it; that what I thought was going on wasn't necessarily going on; that the productivity I assumed to be happening wasn't in fact accurate. That happens every day in the workplace. One of the ways you save the problems coming from that is to talk, Yet the government has determined in this particular subsection that they want to eliminate any discussions whatsoever about merit. I don't understand that.

The section reads: "...the powers and duties of the Public Service Commission or its delegate under the Public Service Act respecting the recruitment or appointment of employees to the public service, whether from within or from outside the public service'..." This raises some very serious questions about seniority. In my view, what this does — and I assume the minister agrees with me — is say to managers: "While you may have someone in your department or unit who does qualify, who does have a lot of years of service and is next in line for this particular job, we choose to go outside and hire somebody else for that particular job." If the person wasn't qualified and couldn't do that job, and there was no one in the unit or department, then I think there is a legitimate and reasonable argument to go outside for that kind of person. But if the person exists within the unit, the manager still doesn't have to hire him. It could be for all kinds of reasons. The manager may be a man who doesn't like women working for him, or vice versa, and that happens. There may be all kinds of other biases that the manager has. I'm not saying it happens very often, but it is possible, and what we have to deal with when we deal with legislation in this House is what's possible under the legislation. What is possible is that people could be denied a rightful promotion within their own unit, because their manager doesn't like them for whatever reason. That's not appropriate.

[3:45]

One of the reasons we've had a good public service in this province is that people could start out as young, junior

[ Page 2445 ]

employees and know that if they were good enough they could reach the top and perhaps someday become a deputy minister. I suspect that with the increasing politicization of the public service the dream of becoming a deputy minister is probably more and more remote, as governments tend to want to have their political cronies, or at least their political and ideological soulmates, as deputy ministers, and I'm not sure that I would argue with that. But certainly the idea that you can start out as a junior employee in the public service in whatever area and work your way up and perhaps become the regional manager or even an associate deputy minister.... Those days are basically gone. In my view they are confirmed to be gone with this legislation.

I recognize that I probably have about two minutes left, Mr. Speaker. It is a question of deciding what to leave out, and there's so much that I want to say that I think what I'll do is leave the rest of these particular notes for the time when we get to committee stage. I will just conclude by saying that I'm more than disappointed; I am, quite frankly, outraged that this bill would be presented this week, just at the time when it seemed as if there might be some possibility for scaling down the rhetoric and tension in this province. The introduction of this bill today does not assist that process. It confirms, in my view, that the government is not anxious at all for consultation or cooperation, but rather is desirous of inflaming attitudes and creating unrest, because it sees that its own political objectives can be enhanced by that course of action, and that is really quite regrettable.

With that let me say that I hope we have an opportunity here, unlike some other bits of legislation, to have a full debate about this bill, which I see as one of the most important....

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm all for that, my friend.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, make sure that your colleagues are, too. We'll see how you vote when they move closure on us.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not a filibuster, a comprehensive debate.

MR. GABELMANN: We're not talking about a filibuster. This bill, together with a number of others, is of such consequence that there needs to be time and some sober second thought, which obviously hasn't yet occurred. It may well be that given enough days of debate on this bill the government may well see the error of its ways and decide to pull back so that it can have the negotiations, consultations and cooperation that most people in this society want and that we on this side of the House desperately want.

MR. SKELLY: I'm using the notes that were provided to me by the minister opposite, Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, I don't say I'm an instant expert, but I have listened to other members and other experts on the issues. Of course, politicians can't be experts on everything. I think there is an obligation on them to do the necessary research, and I feel that in this matter we have done that. Of course, I will be one of the members standing on his feet in this House to oppose this legislation.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, the member for Victoria was simply asking if the minister would have the courtesy to table his speech notes in the House, since he spoke from notes. Since that courtesy wasn't afforded, Mr. Speaker, we will carry on regardless. I understand that Hansard will provide these speeches to us as soon as is humanly possible, given the hours of work that Hansard is being subjected to these days.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I'm taking my place in opposition to the present bill. During his speech introducing the bill the minister talked about the restoration of management rights. I don't think anybody in this Legislature or in the B.C. Government Employees' Union or in any of the public sector unions would argue or dispute that management rights exist. In fact, in virtually every collective agreement in the province, public or private sector.... No matter how you like to divide the unionized workers who work in this province, there is a provision through which the union recognizes management rights, and that's in the B.C. government employees' master agreement as well as in the IWA master agreement and virtually every agreement that I'm familiar with. So there's always a recognition of management rights in a collective agreement. It's in article 16 of your little blue book, Mr. Speaker: "The union acknowledges that the management and directing of employees in the bargaining unit is retained by the employer, except as this agreement otherwise specifies." "As this agreement otherwise specifies" may be the problem that the government is concerned about, but those conditions attached to management rights were conditions negotiated in good faith between....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Arbitration.

MR. SKELLY: Negotiated to the point of arbitration possibly, but the provision for arbitration is also included in that collective agreement and was agreed to both by management and the employees. So management's rights are circumscribed by agreement; they're limited by agreement between the employees, or those who bargain on behalf of the employees, and the employers, or those who bargain in good faith on behalf of the employers. Collective bargaining is recognized throughout the world as a process whereby the rights of employers and employees are bargained and established, with compromises being made on each side. The employees and employers are concerned that making these compromises will result in a labour climate where management and employees working together can produce as much as possible for the enterprise in which they're involved, and at the same time the employees' requirements for salaries, safe working conditions, etc., and also the employer's rights, can be acknowledged in writing.

It's no different in the public sector than in the private sector in that regard, but public sector employees and employers are in a much different position than private sector employees and employers, because the management in the public sector also has the right to make the laws to establish the framework in which that bargaining is carried out — to decide what might and what might not be bargained. That puts the employer in public sector labour relations in an extremely difficult position — one which requires very careful and responsible thought before they embark on changing legislation such as we're changing here, because the employer has a built-in conflict of interest. He can destroy the

[ Page 2446 ]

process through changing the legislation; he can eliminate the process entirely. We can accept your assurances that you won't do that, but that's the power that you, Mr. Minister, and the government have, and that's why you must act much more carefully than an employer in the private sector — because there is that built-in conflict of interest.

There are other conflicts of interest, of course, in public sector bargaining, because it's always possible for the public sector employer to say: "Well, we represent the taxpayers; they are the shareholders in this enterprise." It's always possible for the government to save the taxpayer money by using confrontation tactics to generate a strike, because we know that the longer the teachers are off work, the more money the school board saves; the longer the instructors are off work, the more money the college board saves; and the longer the garbagemen are out of work, maybe the more money the municipality saves.

The danger is ever present that the public will be inconvenienced. For that reason as well, both the employees and employers in the public sector must always bargain much more carefully with regard to the third party, the general public, than those who bargain in the private sector, because they're dealing with.... In the forest industry they're dealing with foreign markets, and although certain consequences could come to the people of the province as a result of the damage done to those markets, at least the inconvenience is not immediate, as it is in bargaining in the public sector. So there's a greater responsibility here on the part of the minister and his people, who are negotiating for the government with the public service.

So what this bill indicates to me, as it does to the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), is that in changing the legislation — in changing the framework of bargaining — the government must be recognizing its failure to bargain competently with its own employees. I'm not criticizing the people who work for the Government Employee Relations Bureau in that regard; I think they do a good job. I think they bargain in good faith when they're not interfered with. I think that the people on the other side of the bargaining table, the Government Employees' Union representatives, are also doing a good job representing their employers, as they must, because they are subject to being fired by their own employees. There's even a labour relations contract in effect there, and if those people don't do a good job and don't negotiate collective agreements that represent the best interests of their employers, then they are going to be out on the bricks themselves.

I have no criticism of the people who are involved in the negotiations; my experience is that these people have been working as well as they are able. The problem is that this government has taken upon itself to become involved in a political way with negotiations in the public sector. There is some ideological reason behind that involvement. I think it is a kind of general vendetta against people working in the public sector. As the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) pointed out, there really isn't that much of a division. There really isn't that much difference between people working in the public sector and people working in the private sector. He questioned the advisability of having a separate statute governing employee-employer relations in the two sectors. In creating those two sectors, I'm not sure we are not doing something that is totally artificial, and creating problems as a result. I agree with him to that extent: that possibly we should be looking at the same labour relations statutes governing both public sector negotiations and private sector negotiations.

[4:00]

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, again we are getting involved in some debate across the floor. The minister says he is simply trying to take us back to the conditions that prevailed in 1973. I can't understand a government that wants to keep taking us back in history. It looks to me that in its attitude the government has gone back 50 years, to about 1933, and here they say they are making a concession because they are only taking us back to 1973 in public sector bargaining. That's not the kind of concession we are looking for, Mr. Speaker. It is not how far back we want to go in history; we would like to make a little progress, even under Social Credit. We would like to turn our faces a little bit to the future and see what improvements we can make in employer-employee relations.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: There's the odometer roller, yelling insults from the back of the room. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will call him to order. I think we could have an opportunity for him to speak in this House....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, were you casting some reflection on the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid)?

MR. SKELLY: Not a chance, Mr. Speaker. I would never do that. And if I did by chance, I certainly withdraw it — unconditionally, without qualification.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's too transparent to make a reflection.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: What we are looking for, Mr. Speaker, is progress in the legislative framework for employee-employer relations in this province. The minister claims to be taking us back to 1973, but his attitude — and the attitude of his colleagues on that side of the House — is in fact taking us back to the 1930s in terms of bargaining relationships between management and employees.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This government has always had a negative attitude toward people who work for all of us, toward people who work for governments and for public bodies. You can see it evidenced in the throne speech, when they talked about that overweight and intrusive public sector. They talked about productivity in the public service as being somewhat less than desirable; about the cost of the public service in this province, the cost of public service salaries. They talked about there being too many government employees, when the statistics available to us indicate that the relative percentage of employment in government, as a percent of the gross domestic product, has been the same since the 1960s. It has always hovered around 6.5 percent: 6.3 percent under the NDP, 6.5 percent now. It has always been the same rough percentage of the gross domestic product.

[ Page 2447 ]

So their attitudes are mainly based on ideology rather than on the facts. They have always had this vendetta — this negative attitude toward employment in the public sector. I think that motivates this legislation more than any other circumstance. It's unfortunate that that attitude has generated a tremendous amount of confrontation between the employees of public bodies and this government over the last seven or eight years. It is not necessary. There are alternatives which are more productive.

But there is no doubt that the process of employer-employee relationships can be improved; that productivity in government programs can be improved. There is always room for improvement. There is no doubt that the basic concerns expressed by the minister in his speech — shift scheduling, scheduling of hours of work and holidays, all of those things — can be improved in order to improve the service to the public. I just wonder how much of the problem is really encompassed in that anecdotal information which the minister made available to us in his speech. Are we talking about massive inconveniences to the public as a result of shift scheduling? Are we talking about...?

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: He mentioned one case where it was $300,000; that would give six extra trips to Broadway for ministers in this cabinet. I'm talking about serious inconveniences to the public.

I think the minister unintentionally misled the House as to the problems created by this shift scheduling. I'm not saying he misled the House intentionally, but dealing with items taken out of context is I think misleading. Those problems do not cause the kinds of inconvenience to the public that the minister is implying. Also, if management and government would negotiate with its employees in good faith, those are problems that could probably be resolved by direct face-to face negotiations. Unfortunately, it's often a question of the attitude each side brings to the bargaining table that results in these things going to arbitration. The attitudes brought to the bargaining table are the really costly things to the public. They inconvenience the public and cause problems that should not be caused in the first place and that would not be caused if both sides would sit down in good faith, within a responsible framework of legislation, and settle their disagreements amicably across the table.

That can't be done by taking the province back 50 years to some illusory idea of management rights that never really did exist and that never really improved productivity. It never resulted in better productivity. If it did so, Mr. Speaker, it did so at tremendous human cost: firing people without justification; forcing people to work long hours, or to work hours that were totally inconvenient; driving mothers out of the labour market because things like maternity leave weren't provided. If we're going back to an era of management rights such as the minister is talking about, there is no increase in productivity that the minister can prove back in those days. As I say, if there was an increase in productivity, it was at tremendous human cost. Of course, maybe that is what the minister is after: that those human costs should be borne in the private sector or by the individuals who were fired. Maybe he's like the economist at Simon Fraser.

AN HON. MEMBER: Walter Block?

MR. SKELLY: No, I'm talking about the guy who says unemployment is caused by unemployment insurance. He's turned the whole world around and stood it on its head. Of course he doesn't go back far enough — beyond unemployment insurance — to investigate what caused unemployment then. You're taking economic advice from economic rightwing crazies who really don't make much sense when you analyze their arguments in terms of current and past realities.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we should be looking forward in this legislation, not moving back towards an illusory idea of management rights that never did exist. There are many countries in western Europe and other countries in the world where progress has been made in legislation relative to labour-management relations. Certain rights have been established in law which require bargaining to take place in a certain way, and which require consultation. This is not in a collective agreement. Certain laws in western European countries require consultation to take place in a certain way on issues of technological change, plant closures, removals and that type of thing. That's in law and not in the collective agreement. Certain legislation in western European countries establishes management obligations. Management obligations are circumscribed in that way, not through negotiations which take place in the formulation of a collective agreement. Also, employee involvement in management is required in those countries; so it can be seen in that country that the employees have a stake in management, a stake in increasing productivity, and have a direct interest in improving the service of government and of private sector employers.

In fact, in Sweden, legislation is currently before their parliament to tax private enterprise and distribute those funds to allow employees or trade unions to buy shares in corporations. That's seen as a positive step, Mr. Speaker, because the distinction between management and employees withers away and employees develop a greater interest in the profitability of the corporation. Maybe one of the things we should be looking at here is eliminating that distinction between management rights and employee rights; improving the process of consultation and thereby improving morale in the public sector and consultation in public sector labour relations; and eliminating some of the confrontation that has developed between unions and management in the public sector, especially under this government. So there is a trend toward joint management, joint ownership and merger of interests of workers and managers in order to increase productivity. The minister in this legislation is taking us in exactly the reverse direction, the direction we should not be going, the direction that increases confrontation, the direction that decreases employee morale, the direction that decreases productivity, the direction that increases resistance of employees to management's suggestions and causes serious problems, not simply for the government or employees but also for the general public.

There is a classic example that comes out of Oakland, California, on the issue of worker involvement in management. It is from an old article cited in Time magazine under the headline: "The New Stakhanovites." Obviously, my colleague knows who the Stakhanovites were. Let me give you this story from memory that appeared in Time magazine some years ago, back around 1972, when Mr. Kaiser, whom we all know in this province, decided he was going to close down his continuous-weld steel pipe plant in Oakland, California. Now that he has enough money from Westar he may open it up again. At that time he had decided to close down

[ Page 2448 ]

his plant because he was producing steel pipe at a rate that was 10 percent above what it could be produced in Japan. When he told the employees that the plant was going to be closed and they were all going to be laid off, because we have none of the legislation that they have in Western Europe which requires provisions like advance notice, retraining, reallocation of the work force, severance pay, etc., that are included in legislation in Western Europe, that was all he was obliged to do under his management rights as defined in the current legislation in California. The workers went to Mr. Kaiser and said that if they took over management of the plant, they could produce continuous weld steel pipe priced competitively with the Japanese product and of the same quality as the Japanese product. To give him credit, Mr. Kaiser told the employees that he would give them a chance. They changed the factory process. They maintained equipment that had been inadequately maintained before and repaired equipment that had been allowed to run down. They even fired some of their own members because they weren't carrying their own load.

[4:15]

The minister talked about the merit system. Here is a case where the employees who have a stake in the management of the operation, productivity, profitability and the price of the product changed the process and fired their own fellow employees because they weren't bearing the burden. As a result, after a number of changes achieved at a very low cost, the employees of Kaiser's continuous-weld steel pipe plant were able to produce the product at the same price that it was being produced in Japan, and therefore were more competitive since transportation costs weren't a factor. Unfortunately Kaiser closed the plant down anyway. This gives you an idea of how negatively management rights, if they aren't circumscribed either in a collective agreement through the bargaining process or in legislation, as they were conceived at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, can impact upon people and economies.

We're opposed to this legislation because, in the minister's own words, it takes us back to an era where management rights, as he conceives them, never really did exist. If they did exist, they did not really increase productivity, reduce confrontation, improve service to the public or resolve labour and management disputes. What that concept of management rights will do is simply to destroy morale, to drive capable employees out of the public service to other governments or areas, to lower productivity in the public service — meaning quality of service made available to the people of this province by the government under the programs administered by this government. So we question why the minister should be moving back to 1973 with an attitude that would take labour-management relations in this province back to 1933. Why backwards? The government could have moved forward, improved legislation, involved employees more in the management process and improved employee morale and the whole process of the government's dealings with its employees.

I don't feel that I can accept this type of legislation or the attitude behind it. It is simply designed to generate additional confrontation. I share the feelings of the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann): that to present this legislation at a time when negotiations between the government and its employees are just beginning or are in process is like waving a red flag before a bull. It is designed to cast those negotiations into chaos. It's, very unfortunate that we're dealing with this bill at this time, with its possible negative impact on negotiations between employees and the government. I stand in opposition to this legislation, Mr. Speaker.

MS. SANFORD: I don't think the minister has anybody on his side of the House who wants to support him in this legislation. I don't think anyone over there wants to support this legislation.

MR. REID: We support it, but we think it's all been said.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been known throughout the years for an anti-labour bias, which we came to understand very clearly when he was Minister of Labour all those years ago.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not true.

MS. SANFORD: We also know that this minister is noted for his arrogant attitude on a lot of things.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are now making personal reflections, and are in fact getting into debate that might be better presented in ministerial estimates, if at all. Please, could we speak to the bill?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this particular piece of legislation today.... When the minister moved second reading of Bill 2 today, he read into the record his speech on Bill 2. Because the House is involved in these unusual sittings, in that the government is keeping us here sometimes 24 hours a day, as a courtesy the minister could have extended, because he knows full well that the staff at Hansard is not able to keep up with....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that point has been addressed in the House, and members should be aware that that concern will be looked after shortly. To the bill, please.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm not asking you to make any decision on this. I know it was raised in a point of order, and I'm certainly not asking you to make a ruling on this. What I am stating is from the perspective of this side of the House, as people who have an obligation to the people of this province to respond to the comments of this minister. The minister himself had those comments all typed out and prepared, and he could very easily, if he had wished to avoid the kind of confrontation that he seems to be involved in through this kind of legislation....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is not within the confines of this bill, either in principle, general statement or any perception. The member will please relate her remarks to the principle of Bill 2.

MS. SANFORD: The minister states that he wants cooperation and consultation, and that he is prepared to make allowances now and again. But basic courtesies are sometimes not extended to those on this side of the House, and we saw an example of that this afternoon.

When the minister introduced this bill, he indicated that in return he wanted cooperation, efficiency and a good and effective service. Yet this bill does more to ensure that the exact opposite will occur in this province than any other

[ Page 2449 ]

action or legislation — coupled with other pieces of legislation — that this government could have introduced. I do not understand why on the one hand they talk about compromise and consultation, and on the other hand bring in legislation which will ensure that the exact opposite occurs, in terms of dealing with their own public service employees.

When children are treated fairly and are taken into consideration in the decisions made within a family, and when children understand that there is consideration and respect for their position within that family, then generally you will find that children respond well. They respond as parents would like them to. When children are encouraged, when they know that the parents and the other family members have some consideration and respect for them, and that they are taken into account when family decisions are made, then that family works together and lives together far better than when the child is not consulted, not considered, or is in fact terrified either through actions or statements by other family members; very often that child then becomes morose, obstreperous, dejected, sullen and uncooperative. That is absolutely typical behaviour of a child, and we all know that is what happens. When you treat a child fairly, things work well. When you terrify and neglect that child, things do not run very smoothly. You invite confrontation within that family.

When we become adults we don't change that much in terms of the way we behave when we are treated fairly and with some consideration for our particular viewpoints with respect to the position we might hold in society. But when adults are neglected and their rights trampled on, when they are in fact terrorized by their employers, then you cannot expect those people to behave any differently than children behave when they are treated unfairly. In other words, we carry our emotions with us.

If the Provincial Secretary wants an efficient and effective public service, then he's done exactly the wrong thing to achieve it. I can think of no action that would make me less likely to look forward to my job, less likely to perform in the best possible way, than if I had an employer who said: "You are not quite the same as those people in the private sector. They have a right to collective bargaining, but through this piece of legislation we are denying you many of the basic rights that employees in the private sector are entitled to."

HON. MR. CHABOT: Rubbish!

MS. SANFORD: "Rubbish," he says. That is also typical of the minister's attitude, I might say.

We know the public service has been terrorized by the actions of this government. We know they have been hunted down in various parts of this province so they could be given their firing notice. We know about that. Everybody knows about that. We know people are being fired without any regard to seniority, years of service, capabilities. They're being fired because the government has put a line through their name: that's the person who is going to be fired; no questions asked, no recourse. That's the way the government wants to treat them. They have a political hit list, yet the minister has the gall to get up in this Legislature today and say that he wants an effective and efficient public service. Can you think of any more effective way that the minister might have asked for the exact opposite than by introducing a bill like this? He's asking for exactly the opposite of what he says he's asking for. His attitude as displayed through this legislation is very similar to the attitude he displayed when he was Minister of Labour all these many years ago.

[4:30]

Why is this government so afraid of the basic procedures of a democracy? Why are they so afraid to allow decision-making to take place at local levels? Why are they are afraid to allow school boards, regional boards and municipalities to function, and why are they afraid to allow the collective bargaining process to take place? Those are all the basis of a democratic system, the very fibre of our democracy. But that government is denying those basic democratic. procedures and principles, and they're denying it again here in this bill.

For some reason, this government feels it is far more capable of making decisions for the people of this province — making those decisions in their offices behind their heavy desks and big armchairs — than are the people involved in collective bargaining, or those who are elected at the local level to make decisions on behalf of the people they represent. They are afraid of collective bargaining and they're denying it right here in this bill. And then they ask for cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense whatsoever — unless this is what they are looking for. Unless this is what the minister really wants, for some unknown political purpose at this time: that he wants that kind of confrontation. He wants to have the public service under his thumb and is denying them rights in the hope they will react in some way he feels may be favourable to him politically. I don't know what kind of thinking exists.

MR. CAMPBELL: Shame!

MS. SANFORD: "Shame," he says. Does the member for North Okanagan feel, when you deny people the basic rights which are given to most other people in a province, that you can expect them to cooperate and perform well for you and do their jobs as servants of the people of the province?

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're incorrect.

MS. SANFORD: There must he some motive, because he is not doing what he says he is doing in this legislation. What he hopes to accomplish in this legislation, he will not; he will accomplish the exact opposite. That's what I'm saying.

MR. LAUK: Would you do that to your employees, Don?

MR. CAMPBELL: Never.

MS. SANFORD: At least the member for North Okanagan says he would never treat his employees the way the Provincial Secretary is treating the employees under this particular bill.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He couldn't afford it. He'd be out of business tomorrow.

MS. SANFORD: The minister is now saying: "We are so inept, so incapable of reaching a satisfactory collective agreement, that we must have special legislation and special privileges or we'll go out of business." How is it the private sector is able to negotiate even in very difficult times and

[ Page 2450 ]

come up with agreements? Yet this minister says they are so inept and incapable of management — they don't know what they're doing; they like confrontation, whatever the reason — that they need this special legislation which makes second-class citizens of the people in the public service, of government employees, citizens not entitled to the rights enjoyed by the private sector under the Labour Code of the province. Even small businesses.... I don't know how large a business....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, while some latitude is allowed, the subject matter of this debate is the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act. Perhaps we could relate our remarks to the principle of this bill.

MS. SANFORD: I don't know whether the government members recognize that the Public Service Labour Relations Act is to the public sector what the Labour Code of British Columbia is to the private sector.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The socialists brought it in.

MS. SANFORD: That's right. We brought in both acts, fortunately for the people of the province. As a result, we haven't had the kind of confrontation that occurred when you were the Minister of Labour, Mr. Minister, I can assure you.

The Public Service Labour Relations Act sets the terms for collective bargaining, and the amendments that are before us today in Bill 2 would, for all time — because there's no sunset clause in this one either — make illegal any bargaining by the B.C. Government Employees Union on behalf of its members, on any of the items listed in the bill. I'm not going to go into that full list, because that is probably better dealt with at committee stage. What it does, when you take the whole thing together in a package, is make a sham out of collective bargaining in the public service. The minister knows it, yet somehow he expects that by denying these employees the basic rights that are available in the private sector, he's going to get better cooperation and productivity, and a more efficient service for the people of British Columbia. That is a joke. When you deny people those privileges and rights, when you treat them as this government has through this and other pieces of legislation, then I don't know how you can expect the kind of cooperation the minister says he is interested in.

The other thing this bill does is to poison the whole industrial relations climate in the province. When you bring in anti-labour legislation of this type....

HON. MR. CHABOT: What kind of rubbish is that?

MS. SANFORD: What kind of rubbish? That shows that the minister is more interested in confrontation than in providing the kind of industrial relations climate that would ensure collective bargaining.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He's not that kind of a man, and you know it.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the minister cares that these kinds of actions are going to affect collective agreements all over this province. They're going to make negotiating more difficult, going to make the whole labour management climate more unsettled because of the way.... When the government — which sets the tone, to a large extent, for industrial relations within the province — brings in this kind of anti-labour legislation, when it centralizes and says they can better determine through edict from the minister what's to be settled in a collective agreement, rather than through the process of collective bargaining, then he demonstrates that he has no confidence in the collective bargaining system or in the whole approach that is a part and parcel of democracy in British Columbia and in Canada.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

If he has no confidence in that system — which this bill clearly demonstrates — then I fear the kind of changes to the Labour Code of British Columbia that we might see when in fact the government decides to bring in those amendments. If he as a minister of the government benches — and the one responsible for all government employees of the province — has the attitude that is demonstrated in this bill, and in Bill 3 particularly, then we are indeed in trouble in terms of peaceful negotiations in both the public and private sectors.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're all mixed up.

MS. SANFORD: We know that minister well enough. He has a long history, and has many times demonstrated his attitude toward collective bargaining in this province. He's demonstrating it again in this bill by denying those people rights; by saying he knows better and they cannot negotiate on the basic issues, as is allowed in the private sector. Somehow we are so incapable, inefficient and inept that we have to have these special provisions, because we are unable to bargain at the bargaining table as the private sector does with its employees. That's what he's saying.

When people are able to sit down at the bargaining table and discuss the terms, contract and conditions under which they work, it gives them a feeling of self-esteem and makes them feel they are part of a process. It makes them feel that their views are at least listened to, and they can hold their heads up high. When they go to work, they know they have bargained and negotiated and arrived at an agreement, even though many of the issues they bargained for may not have ended up in a signed agreement. But when you treat the public service as naughty children to be threatened, terrorized and denied basic rights....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Terrorized?

MS. SANFORD: Would you not feel terrorized if your job was under threat every day of the week?

MRS. JOHNSTON: It's called management; that's what it is.

MS. SANFORD: The first member for Surrey says it's management when you can fire anybody at will, no matter what their record or service; it doesn't matter what the contract says. She says that is management. I say that's dictatorship and it terrorizes the employees who have to live under those kinds of conditions. Those employees are not even able to plan in terms of obtaining a home, in terms of planning in

[ Page 2451 ]

the future at all, because they don't know if next week their job is going to go under the axe.

MRS. JOHNSTON: It applies to the private sector as well.

MS. SANFORD: She is so lacking in knowledge, Mr. Speaker, that she thinks the private sector functions the same way this government does under Bill 2 and Bill 3. There is a vast difference.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I hope the first member for Surrey will be quiet for a few minutes while I explain to her the basic difference between what is happening under Bills 2 and 3 — the actions of that government — as compared to what happens in the private sector.

When you negotiate a contract in the private sector, Madam Member for Surrey, then you allow for provisions....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, as long as you address your remarks to the Chair, I think you will remain in order.

MS. SANFORD: And I'll address them to you as well, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As long as you don't start entering into debate with another member.

MS. SANFORD: I do that only when they interrupt me, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the member for Surrey will listen for a few minutes, I will explain to her, through you, the difference between what happens under Bills 2 and 3 and what happens in the private sector. When employees are fired under this bill they have no recourse; there is no consideration for any contract provisions. They are not laid off, as the government members often say; they are fired. Under the private sector provisions there is negotiation; there is provision for seniority; there is provision for the way in which employees are going to be laid off, not fired, and there is a big difference.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're on the wrong bill.

[4:45]

MS. SANFORD: I'm just trying to help out the first member for Surrey. If the members of this Legislature don't recognize that difference, that there is provision for a layoff based on seniority and for recall once the economic situation changes for that company, then....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read the regulations.

MS. SANFORD: Read the regulations? Oh, listen to that minister! That's the funniest thing I've heard all week.

AN HON. MEMBER: He looks embarrassed.

MS. SANFORD: He must be. I think the minister is actually blushing, and that takes a lot.

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't reached that threshold yet.

MS. SANFORD: No, that's true.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three months he's been sitting on his regulations.

MS. SANFORD: He won't table his speech in the house so that we can have a look at what he had to say in his lengthy introduction to this bill. And he certainly won't table any regulations. He's been promising those for months, and we still haven't seen them. For the government to go around and say there is no difference between the way public sector employees are treated as compared to those in the private sector is sheer nonsense. I hope the first member for Surrey now understands that difference. I'm sure she won't ever say that again. She was just misinformed — or uninformed; I don't know which.

One of the things this bill provides for is that the Public Service Commission will not have its usual arm's-length distance from the government itself. The Public Service Commission will no longer have the authority to hire based on provisions that have been there for a long, long time. We've already seen that circumvented by the....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Never before was a Tony Tozer hired the way a Tony Tozer was hired recently by the Premier.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Public Service Act.

MS. SANFORD: And it was on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, was it? He went through all of the various stages that are required: submitted his resume, submitted his years of experience in the public service, etc. You can take that with a grain of salt, I can assure you.

One of the things that is going to happen as a result of this legislation is that the public service is going to become.... The public service is not going to respond the way the minister says he wants them to respond. When he treats them the way he does in Bill 2 and Bill 3, he can expect that people will not come to work full of enthusiasm, will not produce the way they have done in the past and will not be keen to give the best possible service to the public. You can't blame them when they have been downtrodden and terrorized by the government in the way that they have been; you cannot expect the kind of performance that they would normally give, or they wouldn't be responding in a human way. That's the way people respond. We all know that's the way children respond, and those emotions and responses are typical of adults as well.

What is going to happen? The government will then say, "Well, we have expected productivity and efficiency to be much better; we have expected an effective public service," without ever thinking of how the public service has been treated. They will then say: "What we had better do is to contract out." This is the best possible excuse for turning over to the private sector work which has been done through the public service over the years. What we will find is increased friction within the public service, as more and more of the work that has normally been done by their members is turned

[ Page 2452 ]

over to the private sector. I predict that that will be one of the outcomes of this particular piece of legislation.

The minister will somehow justify that he is in fact saving the public money and that he is performing a great service for the people of British Columbia by turning over to the private sector the work which was normally done by those people in the public sector. He will say to the electorate at the next election: "We have significantly reduced the public sector." But he will not be able to justify to the people of the province that he has saved them money, because the contracting out is likely to cost the government more.

For the information of the minister, I have testimony that was given by the director of research of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees before the Select Committee on Private Enterprise, Washington state House of Representatives. This was a presentation made by the director of research....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not Mississippi?

MS. SANFORD: Mississippi! He's trying to create a Mississippi up here, I can assure you, and this kind of action will do it, Mr. Speaker.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, through their director of research, made a presentation to the House of Representatives in Washington, and one of the things that this particular document contains would be valuable for the minister to consider and certainly for the people of the province to know about. The document says: "It is clear to AFSCME that public officials often exaggerate the value of contracting out as the answer to high costs and inefficiency." I think that's what the minister may be heading toward — the ability to say: "We're going to contract out and save money. We've laid off all these employees." But as this research director points out, that's an erroneous statement made by so many public officials.

"The notion that 'the private sector can do it better,' which has become a catch-all phrase of the current administration in Washington, D.C., is simply a myth. Too often it is an excuse used to justify poor management in the public sector."We certainly have an example of that here. If this government were able to manage in the public sector, then it would not require special legislation, because, as part of that management, they would be able to undergo collective bargaining successfully, But they can't do it. They need these kinds of special provisions which make them superior and which make the employees second-class citizens.

"When public officials have not taken the steps needed to maintain or improve public services, they can fall back on: 'I cut the number of people on the payroll.'" Oh, that's very applicable here in British Columbia, isn't it? Because already they're going around saying: "Oh, we're cutting the public service. We're saving all of this money. We are, in fact, doing the people of the province a big favour." Well, the research director points out in example after example in this document presented to Washington officials that their assumptions are erroneous and that in fact the taxpayers are being misled by statements of that type.

On page 7 of this document the research director talks about higher costs: "Because private companies are in business to make a profit, the costs charged to the customer must include a profit margin over and above their labour and material expenses." So already, when you contract, rather than utilizing the public service — people who are already in place, who are experienced and who are used to dealing with the problems that come before them — then you must have that profit margin above and beyond labour and material expenses.

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot to say on this particular piece of legislation, and I really regret that I can't let you know some of the other arguments advanced by this research director about the fallacy of the approach taken by the government of today. They have no confidence in collective bargaining, they thrive on confrontation, they are effectively making the government employees of this province second-class citizens, they are misleading the public in trying to equate what they are doing under this legislation with what happens in the private sector, and they are using a typical Socred approach to labour-management relations, which means that those relations are going to deteriorate. They should be setting the climate in this province for sound industrial relations, when they are in fact doing the exact opposite. They should be ashamed of themselves. But I must say that the minister responsible for this piece of legislation is behaving exactly as I expected him to, based on his performance as Minister of Labour in this province many, many years ago.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Continuing debate on Bill 2, the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would be prepared to give way to any of the government members who wished to speak, apart from the minister, who would close debate. It would appear that since the Premier is back in town, the order is out, and they're sitting there very quietly, saying nothing on this bill.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May we please have order in the House. The member for Cowichan-Malahat has the floor. Let's give her the courtesy of our total attention.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Theres no question in my mind that this piece of legislation, Bill 2, along with the other pieces that we've been discussing over the past many months, is taking us right down the road to confrontation, and there's no question that the minister responsible for this bill is doing this by deliberate design.

[5:00]

As I see this bill, its main purpose is to legislate out of existence a great many sections of the BCGEU master agreement. That's its prime purpose. Sections relative to appointments, promotions, reclassification and relocation presently covered by the agreement are simply being legislated out of existence by Bill 2. What this bill will do is give the government an absolute free hand to do what it wants to do in dealing with its employees. We've worked long and hard in this province to establish a merit system. I should think that government would recognize the advantages of a merit system, whereby good performance — "productivity," as they like to call it — is rewarded. That's what the merit system is all about. This piece of legislation completely destroys the merit system and allows appointments to be made on a patronage basis instead of on the basis of merit. That is what this bill does, and if it is passed, as I presume it will be unless the government sees the error of its ways.... We have been sitting in this House, and we on this side of the House

[ Page 2453 ]

have been talking and talking, and arguing and debating, hoping and praying that eventually the government will recognize that perhaps they are not 100 percent infallible, that perhaps they are making a mistake. So we continue, Mr. Speaker. I continue to take my place in debate, and I will continue to try to convince the minister responsible for this bill to reconsider, because this bill, if passed, will legislate out of existence any negotiated agreement regarding hours of work, work schedule, shift work, overtime, vacation scheduling and seniority.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nonsense!

MRS. WALLACE: It's not nonsense at all. Those are the things that are contained in this bill.

Let's just review whether or not the provisions are there. Talking about selection, the bill reads: "No collective agreement shall affect the powers and duties of the Public Service Commission or its delegate...respecting the recruitment or appointment of employees to the public service, whether from within or from outside the public service." Article 12.01 of the union agreement says: "The general secretary of the union or his-her designate may sit as an observer on a selection panel for positions in the public service bargaining unit. The observer shall be a disinterested party. This clause shall not apply to excluded positions." If this legislation passes, section 12.01 is down the tube; it no longer applies.

Section 12.03 deals with appeal procedure.

There's the minister leaving the Legislature, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure he'll be back shortly.

The appeal procedure, section 12.03: "An unsuccessful candidate may request an explanation from the panel chairperson by telephone of the reasons why he-she was unsuccessful...." Surely in a democratic system we have the right to know why we weren't chosen when we apply for a position. Then they have the right to appeal that decision, again under section 12.03: "If the grounds are not clearly stated in the appeal, they must be submitted within five (5) days of the filing of the appeal. Where an appeal has been filed, no permanent transfers or placements shall take place until the appeal has been adjudicated upon by the Public Service Commission." With the passage of this section that clause is no longer valid.

Time limits are set out. Relocations. The government says it wants to control and be the sole master of what happens. Under article 12.04 there was a definite agreement as to how it should be arranged if someone had to be moved, if there was a relocation. If the government doesn't like that particular clause, why not sit down and discuss it with the employees? If it was working to the disadvantage of the government, then talk about it; don't just simply wipe it out by a piece of legislation. That's not consultation; that's confrontation. That is always the tone of this government.

Section 12.05: a screening committee. This screening committee dealt with auxiliary and probationary employees who had completed their probationary period and were being considered for permanent positions. That will be gone. If that's not dealing with merit, then I don't know what is. You judge on the basis of merit and productivity, and you do it in cooperation with those employees and their peers, not by a piece of legislation which makes null and void section 12.05 of the union agreement.

Transfers without posting. That's section 12.06, and that will be gone. That was simply to cover lateral or voluntary changes, transfers, voluntary demotions on compassionate or medical grounds for employees who have become incapacitated by industrial injury or industrial illness. What could be fairer than to have a clause in the agreement which allows the screening committee to consider those kinds of applications from a humanitarian point of view? That's gone. That means that a person who, for compassionate or medical grounds, requires a change, a transfer, can simply be discharged. There is no protection for those people any more. A person who has become incapacitated as a result of an industrial accident or an industrial illness: there is no protection that a lateral transfer can be arranged, or even a voluntary demotion in order that they can continue to work within their capacity as a result of this accident or illness. No protection — gone. They'll be out on the street. This is the kind of thing this minister is bringing in, and I think it's a disgrace.

Interview expenses, section 12.07, will also be gone. There is no provision for that kind of automatic thing if someone is interested in upgrading their position. Merit is out the window and patronage will be the order of the day.

Section 12.08, "Postings." In the case of vacancies, it's all spelled out here what's to happen, how the vacancies are to be filled. "Vacancies of a regular nature that are to be filled, for positions in the bargaining unit, shall be posted within thirty (30) days. Such postings shall be throughout the public service or in regions or ministries as deemed necessary by the Public Service Commission." What's wrong with that, Mr. Speaker? What's wrong with letting the people who work in the public service know that there's going to be a vacancy in the ministry for which they work Or within the region where they work, or for that matter throughout the public service? Then people who are interested in upgrading themselves, people who are capable, trained personnel, have an oportunity to apply for those jobs. That's merit. That's how the system is supposed to work, and that is going out the window with this legislation. That section will no longer be valid. It's disgraceful.

I really cannot believe that this section relative to postings.... "The notice of postings shall contain the following information: nature of position, qualifications, skills, whether shift work is involved, wage or salary rate or range....specific location." Then there's a length of time in which people can apply. I've had a lot to do in my career at Hydro and other organizations with administering collective agreements, with interpreting them and dealing with them; in seeing that jobs are posted and that selections are made based on the terms as set down in the collective agreement; in seeing that fairness applies, that merit is considered. It is an established concept in British Columbia with both the public and the private sectors, and yet this bill simply wipes that out. I do not understand why.

Section 13.01 of the existing agreement deals with layoffs. It was mutually agreed as to how layoffs should be handled. It wasn't taken for granted that no one would ever be laid off; that never would a work project come to an end; that never would there be a need to reduce a certain section or a certain area. Provisions for layoff were covered in the agreement. "13.01...in the event of layoff resulting from a decrease in the amount of work to be done, the following shall apply: (1) auxiliary employees shall be laid off, in reverse order of seniority...." Last on, first off — what's wrong with that? That's been a recognized principle around this province. "(2) Regular employees with less than three (3) years' service seniority shall be laid off in reverse order of

[ Page 2454 ]

seniority; (3) the provisions of this clause may not apply to an employee on completing an apprenticeship program" — it's a little bit different if he's on an apprenticeship program — "(4) it is understood that regular employees with more than three (3) years' service seniority will not be subject to layoff."

HON. MR. CHABOT: Right on! You've got it.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, if this government cannot run its business in such a way as to have employees who have worked three years for the government subject to layoff, with the kind of turnover that we all know exists in the public service, there's something wrong. There is a provision for advance notice. If the government thinks that is wrong and they're going to have to downscale more than that, then why don't they negotiate to change it from three to four or from three to five?

AN HON. MEMBER: They won't.

[5:15]

MRS. WALLACE: I don't believe that's right. I don't think you want to negotiate, I don't think you have tried to negotiate. People will be reasonable if you will be reasonable with them.

HON. MR. CHABOT: "One layoff and we all walk out" — that's reasonable!

MRS. WALLACE: That's the response that you get from creating the kind of confrontation that you're creating with the kind of attitude that you're taking in introducing these bills into the Legislature.

"Article 14 — Hours of work." Surely we have some right in this province to establish, by joint consultative measures, the hours that we're going to work. That's done in private industry all the time. That will be gone with this piece of legislation, gone completely. Work schedules are also wiped out. You know, if you really want productivity, cooperation and good morale, then it's really important that you allow people to have some input into the conditions under which they work.

As I say, I have had a fair amount of experience on both sides of the fence in dealing with people working under collective agreements, and I have never found that the big stick was the answer. It's being used by this government in this kind of legislation. That's what causes the confrontation. That Provincial Secretary, when he was Minister of Labour, provoked more labour unrest in this province than was ever seen here before or since. The only thing that is going to....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Why was that happening? It was as a direct result of what that minister created over the years prior to that. That was a direct result of that. Under the Labour Code — and I know I shouldn't be talking about other legislation — which was brought in between the years 1972 and 1975.... The result of that balanced legislation created a better labour climate than had occurred in this province for years and years. It is the tampering with that and the public service that has created and will continue to create more and more confrontation in the field of labour relations.

Section 14 is on work schedules, hours, standby provisions, meal periods, points of assembly and work start times. All of those things will be no longer applicable when this legislation comes into force. So do you wonder that the people who sat down and negotiated this agreement...? And remember, "agreement" means that both parties have negotiated in good faith and have decided that this is a document by which they can live; both sides have agreed to that. It is not something that has been dictated by one side or the other. It is an agreement, and that's what "agreement" means. It means that both parties have come together and said: "This is the document that we shall both sign, and by signing that document we agree that these are the rules." Now, by a piece of legislation, while this agreement is still in effect, the government is saying that all these parts of the agreement are no longer valid. And then that Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) wonders why the employees are upset. What they are saying is that we, along with government, have agreed that this is the way it is. Government is saying: "We're just autocratically, without any consultation, wiping out section after section after section of an agreement that both parties have negotiated and signed in good faith." That's what's happened, Mr. Speaker, and that's why those workers are so upset.

Section 16 is on overtime, Vacation scheduling — you know, that was a pretty loose section on vacations. It allowed the employer to set those times almost entirely. But that's gone now. They can set a vacation now, and when you've got your reservations made the employer can say: "Sorry, can't go now."

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You mean management shouldn't have any say in all of these...?

MRS. WALLACE: Of course management should have a say, and it had a say under this section. They were the ones that scheduled the vacations. If you can't manage better than that.... You know, to negate an agreement you have signed shows nothing other than that you are poor managers. You haven't been able to negotiate a proper agreement, if that's what you feel about this agreement. The things that are being said indicate that you do not have any confidence in your own negotiators or any support for your own negotiators. You're not able to manage, you're not managing, and now you're negating the whole agreement, or a great portion of it. I've gone through a number of sections, and I intend to go through a few more. You're negating it because you are not able to manage. You are not able to manage. You are the people that are involved in this. You're the people that have done this. You've done it to yourselves; apparently you've negotiated in poor faith.

"Loss of seniority" — this is the section I'm looking for, Mr. Speaker. Section 31.04 deals with seniority, layoff and recall, and that is now gone. There is nothing to do with seniority, nothing to do with merit; it's strictly on the basis of who you happen to know, who you are. And the government wonders why the workers are upset.

One thing that I have seen in every union contract, be it public or private, that I have ever had anything to do with is the clause that says that the contract will continue to be in effect if in fact a new contract has not been negotiated at the time of expiration of the existing contract. What we are seeing now is a complete negation of that principle by this and by

[ Page 2455 ]

other pieces of legislation. It's interesting to note and remember that this was signed in good faith by the people who negotiated on behalf of government.

Section 1.02: "Future legislation. In the event that any future legislation renders null and void or materially alters any provision of this agreement, the remaining provisions shall remain in effect for the term of the agreement, and the parties hereto shall negotiate a mutually agreeable provision to be substituted for the provision so rendered null and void or materially altered."

Well, that means that you would have to renegotiate almost half of that agreement. I don't see any intent of this government to move to renegotiate in good faith with the workers' representatives. They're intent, rather, on simply moving by legislative clout, and that's what this bill is: to remove those sections and forget about that section 1.02, which indicates that they will negotiate those areas that have been altered.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: Standing order 17(2) very precisely and clearly says that when a member is speaking no other member shall interrupt him except to raise a point of order. We have continual interruptions from the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet), the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and lately the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I think you should draw to their attention decorum and propriety in the House. I know you intended to do it.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There seems to be a lot of assistance being offered to the Chair. On that same point of order, the Chair recognizes the hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for Skeena very carefully read out that standing order, and I just want to abide by the standing orders, because I'm not one who believes in violating the standing orders of this House. I am abiding by the orders, because I'm not interrupting him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Both comments are most interesting. I'm certainly aware of the standing orders and, in particular, standing order 9, which, as I'm sure we are all well aware, states: "Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum." I think it's fair to say....

I realize that you just have returned to the House momentarily, but I have been attempting to maintain order. I believe the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat has had the attention of the House with very few interruptions. Hopefully she will be able to enjoy the further attention of the House. Perhaps now the hon. member could continue with debate on Bill 2.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would thank the member for Skeena for raising the point because it appeared to me that the Minister of Environment was running a fairly good interference through the greater part of the last 10 or 15 minutes of my remarks. I would also like to thank the Provincial Secretary for drawing to the attention of the House the sexist nature of our standing orders. Perhaps he, as Provincial Secretary, would undertake to do something about that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I relish the invitation for the Provincial Secretary to take the standing orders and revise them. I'll accept that and I'll bring back a new book on standing orders that will make this House far more efficient and effective.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, I'm sure that response is well appreciated, but I do not believe that was a valid point of order.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I think that in these times of stress in British Columbia and at the time of what appears to be an attempt by the government to force through some legislation which certainly, in my opinion, will be to the detriment not only of the workers of this province but of the economy and our social structure, it does well to have a look at the International Labour Organization's general conference which was held in Geneva back in, I think, 1963. I would point out that Canada is one of the signatories to this agreement. They point out some of the criteria, some basic standards and recommendations as to just how they believe agreements, legislation — anything relative to labour....

HON. MR. CHABOT: That has nothing to do with this bill.

MRS. WALLACE: Oh, yes.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're all wet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I'm sure we are all aware of the rules of the House. If the hon. member who has the floor would address her remarks to the Chair and if the other hon. members would allow her to have the floor unobstructed, I'm sure she'll be able to conclude her remarks faster than if we continually interrupt her.

[5:30]

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you see, I have a lot I want to say and I'm not getting through it very fast with all these interruptions.

The International Labour Organization's general conference was held in Geneva on June 5, 1963. Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals with regard to termination of employment at the initiative of the employer, which is the fifth item on the agenda, they came up with some standards — some guidelines — and I think it worthwhile to draw them to the attention of the House and, in particular, of the minister responsible for this legislation....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order. I don't mind the member bringing a whole series of things to my attention, providing it relates specifically to the legislation. But what she is attempting to convey to me there has to do with terminations. This legislation does not pertain to terminations. She is on the wrong piece of legislation. She will have an opportunity, if she has memorized what she has to say and has her speaking notes, to relate that to the minister later on, when we're debating the committee stage of Bill 3. But what she is trying to convey to me there is Bill 3, not Bill 2.

[ Page 2456 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, I take it that was a point of order pursuant to standing order 43.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Absolutely.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Assuming the hon. member's remarks were restricted to termination, I believe the hon. minister had a correct point of order. But assuming they're not, please continue.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like just to read from Bill 2, section 13(c): "...the organization, establishment and administration of the ministries and branches of the government, including the right of the government to establish and eliminate positions...." You eliminate a position, and then you are into the problem of either terminating that person or transferring him....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Bill 3.

MRS. WALLACE: If I may just continue for a moment...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You may continue, hon. member.

MRS. WALLACE: ...if the minister could just chew his nails for a moment, until I get through items I and 2 and come to item 3, the International Labour Organization recommendations, "Supplementary provisions concerning reduction of the workforce," I would submit, Mr. Speaker, apply to Bill 2, section 13(c), where they're talking about elimination of positions. Under that section they set out some recommendations, and one of those recommendations was: "Positive steps should be taken by all parties concerned to avert or minimize, as far as possible, reductions of the workforce by the adoption of appropriate measures, without prejudice to the efficient operation of the undertaking, establishment or service." That was their first point. Then: "When a reduction of the workforce is contemplated, consultation with workers' representatives should take place as early as possible on all appropriate questions." They go on: "The questions on which consultation should take place might include measures to avoid the reduction of the workforce, restriction of overtime, training and retraining, transfers between departments, spreading termination of employment over a certain period, measures for minimizing the effects of the reduction on the workers concerned, and the selection of workers to be affected by the reduction." Item 3 under this section: "As and when consultation takes place, both parties should bear in mind that there may be public authorities which might assist the parties in such consultation." I can't believe my green light is on. "If a proposed reduction of the workforce is on such a scale as to have a significant bearing on the manpower situation of a given area or branch of economic activity, the employer should notify the competent public authorities in advance of any such reduction."

Certainly what the International Labour Organization recommends is a consultative process. What this government is proposing is autocratic, regressive legislation that steps us backward down the time tunnel, back to the days when that Provincial Secretary held the Minister of Labour's post and brought in the kind of legislation...

HON. MR. CHABOT: You weren't here then.

MRS. WALLACE: I was around B.C., Mr. Minister.

...which caused continuing confrontation in the economy of British Columbia. It did more toward deteriorating our economy....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Simply false.

MRS. WALLACE: It's not false, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate that after all these years of experience in this House as a member of government and as a member of opposition, that minister has still not seen the light yet, and is moving to bring in yet another piece of legislation that will set this province back on its heels more than I care to contemplate. I regret that I have to stand in these premises and discuss, in 1983, a piece of legislation that would have been outdated and unacceptable in the seventies, the sixties, the fifties, or even earlier than that.

MR. BLENCOE: It's a pleasure to stand along with my colleagues to debate this particular bill, at this time when we thought there was perhaps a chance for this government to show the people of British Columbia that it was learning a little about conciliation and compromise, and that indeed the olive branch was going to be put out to all those affected by this current government's legislation and its confrontational tactics. Unfortunately, it would appear that the olive branch that was being held out by the Premier was just a sham, a game, and here we are debating Bill 2, when we thought the provincial government was serious about sitting down with those who are to be most affected by various pieces of legislation in Bill 2 at this time. We thought the government was serious about that consultation process. It is quite clear this government has no intention of consulting those to be affected dramatically by its legislation. We now know, of course, what was tabled today in this House by the House Leader for our party. It's a clear course of action and a determination not to break ranks or to consider any method that would bring some peace and harmony in the labour field into this province.

It is most unfortunate that the Premier decided to play such a game, that he was willing and able to try to discuss some ways with those to be affected, particularly with the members of the Solidarity coalition, who in good faith had come to this building to meet with the Premier, hoping for some further consultation and to try to find some consensus on pieces of legislation that dramatically affect the livelihoods of thousands of British Columbians. Yet it would appear it was all for nought. Of course, now Bill 2 is back with us: a reprehensible piece of legislation in terms of the collective bargaining process in this province. This bill and other labour bills are doomed to create nothing but labour unrest, confrontation and a weakening of the British Columbia economy, which will take years and years to recuperate. That's the theme. That's the overall theme of the government's legislation.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You are going to have a dramatic impact on the economy of this province. Already the financial institutions of North America have sent you a serious message about your ability to manage the financial arrangements of this province and downgraded your credit rating, Mr. Minister You have a bad rating down there. And now to

[ Page 2457 ]

compound that action, they are creating absolute chaos in the workforce, in the labour-management relations field, and for what? For short-term political gain which will wreak havoc in this province. Somebody will have to clean up after you are kicked out of office in two or three years. Somebody will have to clean up after what you've done to this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Victoria has the floor. I believe he is attempting to carry on debate but is having some difficulty. If we could all come to order, I'm sure he will continue his debate on Bill 2.

MR. BLENCOE: It is unfortunate that certain ministers get a little irate when they hear some truth. They can't handle truth. It's not in their vocabulary. It is a word that's got lost.

[5:45]

I recall a previous debate over a piece of labour legislation, which I believe was Bill 26. It has taken years and years to establish certain courses of action, certain principles and criteria in trying to establish labour-management peace in this province and in other civilized parts of this country. Much expertise and time have gone into establishing ways and means of ensuring that processes are in effect to ensure that both sides are dealt with fairly, that their rights are protected, and that there are certain processes in effect where collective bargaining does take place. Both sides understand the process. What happens, however, when one side with an almighty club decides to remove some of those basic rights and privileges that are now accepted in 99 percent of all labour jurisdictions? When you decide to take away some of those protections in terms of maintaining labour peace in this province, you are asking for serious problems. We've only got to read some of the reports by learned people in the field who have been asking this government to rethink their current direction in the labour field. It can only create further unrest at a time when the people of British Columbia are asking for a rethink and some sort of compromise in what you're trying to achieve, and at least some honest discussion with those to be affected. To spurn that advice and to continue on your course, despite requests from the people of British Columbia that you take a second look, is not in the long-term interests of this province.

We have got to remember that the economy of this province is in very delicate shape and it's going to take a long time to recuperate. The government has been in office seven years, and we now have one of the most horrendous provincial debts this province has ever seen. It would appear we are about to enter into one of the most horrendous times in terms of labour-management arrangements in this province. It is no wonder the various people affected by such bills as Bill 2 are vehemently opposing your current course of action,

I want to go through some of the components in Bill 2 that really deserve to have another look and at least some honest discussion with the various labour people who want to meet with this government for some meaningful dialogue. Bill 2, the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1983, radically changes section 13 of the current act. If Bill 2 passes, the new section would read as follows:

"(1) No collective agreement shall affect

"(a) the powers and duties of the Public Service Commission or its delegate under the Public Service Act respecting the recruitment or appointment of employees to the public service, whether from within or from outside the public service,

"(b) any matter included under the Pension (Public Service) Act,

"(c) the organization, establishment and administration of the ministries and branches of the government, including the right of the government to establish and eliminate positions, to assign duties to positions, to establish work scheduling and to determine programs and services and the method of their delivery,

"(d) the right of the government to establish and administer systems of job evaluation and classification, and

"(e) the procedures and methods of training or retraining all employees not affected by section 18, other than training programs that are administered by a branch or ministry and that apply to one occupational group only, and any provision in a collective agreement that is expressed to affect any of the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e) is without effect."

What this government is going to say is that no collective agreement shall affect the unilateral right of a deputy minister or manager to set hours of work, schedules, lieu days, vacations or days of rest. No collective agreement shall affect the right of a manager to administer his or her branch or department, the right to refuse overtime, disciplinary transfers, selection for substitution pay, points of assembly and return home provisions, relocation regulations, board and lodging provisions, use of private vehicles, right of workers to refuse duties of a personal nature from supervisors. These are major changes, a major erosion of rights that have been collectively bargained for over the years. No collective agreement shall affect the right of the government to establish and eliminate positions, including agreements of conversion of auxiliary employees to regular layoff and recall protection, and benefits for auxiliaries. The present act makes the effect of reductions in establishment employees a mandatory issue for negotiations. That requirement will now be eliminated, meaning no right to negotiate reorganization arrangements, layoff and recall rights arising out of closures, or alternative employment and job offers.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

These are major changes that I don't think the people of British Columbia fully understand. It is going to get this government into some serious trouble unless they are prepared to deal in an honest and forthright manner with those to be affected. No collective agreement in the future shall affect the right of the government to establish and administer systems of job evaluation and classification. GERB will be able to bring in its own job evaluation and classification system, which could result in a downgrading of all jobs. We have to remember the health care worker and office assistant classifications that were imposed just recently over the union's objections.

This is a major shift and an erosion of the collective bargaining process in terms of public servants in this province. Basically, it eliminates the ability of the union to collectively bargain any issues other than wages and placement of individuals within the classification system. It guts the current collective agreement of the BCGEU and will, if passed, all but destroy the BCGEU and its work within the public service if extended into the public sector generally.

[ Page 2458 ]

There are a number of other sections that are clearly of great concern, and that are going to create for the government nothing but problems. Section 13 of the current act provides that the collective agreement shall not affect the principle of merit in the appointment and promotion of public service employees. In practice, this section has been interpreted to mean that the application of the merit principle can be bargained, and this has been reflected in collective agreements. The new section 13(l) provides that a collective agreement shall not deal with methods of recruitment to the public service, whether from within or outside the public service. This will free the government to appoint widely from outside the public service, and is a clear attempt to undermine a professional public service and to restore a patronage system in British Columbia. One of the basic things that has been accepted in the public service, not only in Canada but in other jurisdictions, is the fact that a merit system should be allowed to flourish and should be enhanced. What is going to happen now is that blatant favouritism will take place, and the concept of patronage will be rampant within the public service. Patronage will once again become the operative word in the public service. The good old Social Credit pork-barrel that we eliminated a number of years ago — you're going to bring it back today. It's clear that patronage is going to be the operative concept. That is what this government is reintroducing.

This amendment is a major challenge to article 12 of the current BCGEU master agreement, the service career policy. Current provisions that will be threatened or removed include posting of job vacancies, union observer on selection panels, appeal procedures for unsuccessful in-service applicants, protection of the employee against relocation, seniority of auxiliary employee applying for a regular position. Elimination of these provisions in a collective agreement undermines the notion of a public service career. The public service has managed over the last number of years to attract talented, knowledgeable people into certain areas. The public service of British Columbia is highly regarded for that fact. However, that potential, expertise and knowledge, that professional atmosphere, is now going to disappear. This government is going to lose many of its public servants. Living in this riding and knowing many of those public servants, I can tell you that many talented, long-time loyal public servants who have served this government — and many other governments — over the years are planning to leave if they can find job opportunities elsewhere. They no longer trust this government: anyone can be hit or terminated at any time, despite loyal, dedicated service to this province.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Eliminate the ministry of information and its $20 million, and we'd have a few dollars kicking around. Or stop painting the transit buses Socred colors. That would save a few dollars.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: I was asked a question, Mr. Speaker. I was just giving the government a few areas where it could cut. I'll tell you what you could do. You could can the Minister of Labour's high-flying little parties at the Hotel Vancouver and make him sleep where other people have to sleep. Save the people of British Columbia a lot of money and employ good people in the public service. That might hire a few people.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, notwithstanding, the obligation upon a member is still within the confines of the bill.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the labour legislation before us and the current course of action of this government is going to see a lot of people lose their jobs. Thousands are going to lose their jobs. I wonder how many of those jobs could have been saved if this government hadn't spent millions of dollars in various ways. If it hadn't gone around spending taxpayers' dollars enjoying the best accommodation, or $20 million for information, many people in British Columbia could continue to be employed in the public service, giving their time to benefit this province and to ensure they are a part of economic recovery.

Mr. Speaker, the priorities of this government have been seen through by the people of British Columbia. They're beginning to see it on a daily basis, and they see that you're declaring war on the public sector in British Columbia, and on other areas.

Are you going to stay in the Hotel Vancouver over the weekend? On Christmas Eve is that where you're going to stay? How much is that costing the taxpayer? You're a disgrace.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I'd ask both sides of the House to come to order. The member for Victoria will continue in second reading of the bill before us.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I am making a point that the actions....

MR. SPEAKER: Nonetheless, hon. member, while points may be there to be made, the member has a responsibility to follow the rules of the House.

MR. BLENCOE: Perhaps you could say that certain members of the government follow certain rules too.

[6:00]

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I ask Your Honour to look towards the end of the chamber and see that the clock now says 6:00.

MR. SPEAKER: My attention having been drawn to the clock, I recognize the government House Leader.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.