[ Page 2459 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Mr. Blencoe –– 2459

Mr. Cocke –– 2460

Mr. Lea –– 2465

Mrs. Dailly –– 2469

Mr. Rose –– 2473

Mr. Nicolson –– 2478

Mr. Stupich –– 2481

Mr. Hanson –– 2486

On the amendment

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2503

Mr. Lockstead –– 2516

Mrs. Wallace –– 2523

Ms. Sanford –– 2526

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 2530

Mr. Lank –– 2531

Mr. Cocke –– 2532

Ms. Brown –– 2535

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1983     

The House met at 8:05 p.m.

PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR RELATIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983
(continued)

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, before we withdrew to the various dining-rooms, I was trying to indicate to the government that perhaps they should go back to their statements earlier in the week that they are interested in getting together with the various groups which are asking the government to reconsider its legislation. We had thought that the government, the Premier in particular, was beginning to see that there was some room in this province for a few olive branches to be offered.

AN HON. MEMBER: We haven't been offered one.

MR. BLENCOE: It's been offered. The various organizations that feel dramatically affected by your legislation have indicated a willingness to sit down and discuss, in a sane, sensible and intelligent manner, some of your particular legislation. Obviously Bill 2 is part of that legislative package. Despite those indications that the government appeared to be serious about discussing this with the people to be dramatically affected by the legislation, those overtures and olive branches were really quite meaningless. There was no intention to reconsider or take a look at Bill 2, or to discuss it Leaders of organizations feel that their rights and privileges which had been collectively bargained, are not to be discussed in a meaningful way.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I believe in second reading we speak to the principle of the bill, and not to what might have transpired either now or later.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we have already had what can best be described as broad introductory remarks. At this point I must ask the member to contain his remarks to the principle of the bill before us.

MR. BLENCOE: But Mr. Speaker, I am indeed talking to....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, when the Chair asks a member to address the principle of the bill, he is in a way admonishing the member. And when the member turns around and says "I am," he is in fact challenging the Chair.

MR. BLENCOE: I would never do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Neither one of us would want that, hon. member, so may we address the principle of the bill?

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, we had hoped there would be a tabling for a short period of some of this legislation, particularly Bill 2, to give all parties the opportunity to consult in a meaningful way. It's our feeling, and I think the feeling of many people in the province of British Columbia, that the time for that has come, after over three months of discussion on various labour bills. Bill 2 is part of that. It's time for a little bit of sanity, I think. We all know that when you're dealing with a very delicate issue such as management and labour relations, sides will be taken and positions presented, and misunderstandings will often become exaggerated. When that happens, the time has come for all parties, if we believe we can still discuss with all the various groups to be affected by legislation.... If we feel we can in a gentlemanly way get together and try and work out our common problems, that would really be the sensible thing to do.

We're not alone in asking for that kind of thing in terms of Bill 2, in asking the Premier or whoever else to sit down with leaders and have some meaningful dialogue. The progressive municipality of Delta very recently, on October 4....

Delta council wants the provincial government to table its restraint legislation for a cooling-off period while it consults with the groups most affected. Delta council, of course, is involved in another piece of legislation, and we all know....

AN HON. MEMBER: You weren't listening to them about that legislation; why are you listening to them now?

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: It would appear that Delta Council is finally seeing the way, that with consultation and discussion oil problems outside of these four walls here, maybe there could be some resolution of our problems in the labour-management field. We've taken a long time to establish things at the Labour Relations Board, a long time to ensure that collective bargaining processes are fair and equitable and both sides are fairly represented, and here is Delta council asking the government to cool off. Delta council is probably the only municipality in British Columbia that still supports this government; but even that council is saying to table your package, including Bill 2, for a cooling-off period, and consult with the groups most affected. Now that's got to tell you something. I think they're right.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would suggest that you call the new young member from Victoria — because he has served on city council in Victoria he thinks he knows it all — back to speak to the principle of the bill. Tell him that decisions made by various councils throughout the province — he'll probably cover all of them — are sort of irrelevant to the principle of the bill which is before the Legislature. I suggest that you tell that young member that he should not waste the taxpayers' money by continuing to speak in irrelevant terms.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. It's ironical indeed that the member from Peace River would get up on a point of order and talk about irrelevancy — the member who has abused this House more than anybody else. Mr. Speaker, the member is exactly on the principle and the member for Peace River knows it. For 14 hours that member filibustered this house on one bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member — for that matter, all members of the House — I would have thought that after a dinner recess we would come back prepared to partake of debate with the proper decorum. Only one member has the floor.

[ Page 2460 ]

Referring to the point of order, I believe the hon. second member for Victoria was about to develop an argument. There was in the Chair's opinion a trace of relevancy, and I am sure that if we give him a few moments he will quickly home in on Bill 2. Should he not do that, of course the Chair would be prepared to call him to order.

Interjections.

[8:15]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, this member keeps interrupting.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. That goes for both sides of the House. It is clear the hon. member is having some trouble continuing debate because of disorderly conduct on both sides of the floor. May we now continue on Bill 2.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, what I was trying to point out before I was interrupted was that a very responsible elected local council such as Delta has asked you to reconsider Bill 2 –– I think it's important to record that they've asked you to reconsider your legislative package, which of course includes Bill 2. Finally they have seen the way, and recognize that the legislative package you have put forward is not in the best interests of British Columbians. Even Delta has recognized that. Even Don Bellamy has recognized that. Your own Social Credit candidates have recognized that and are all jumping ship like rats. They're all leaving you — fast. We've already named many of them. If you were a candidate who didn't get elected, I'm sure you would be saying the same thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one.

MR. BLENCOE: We've already named many of them. If you were a candidate today and they got elected, I'm sure you'd be saying the same thing, Mr. Member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, order, please. Might I request the hon. second member for Victoria to refrain from partaking of debate across the floor, and to direct his remarks to the Chair. If he does that, I would be pleased to ensure decorum in the House.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, let's try to put a serious tone on this particular issue. The real issue is the fact that we have a government that is prepared to upset dramatically the orderly conduct of the public service in British Columbia. It is prepared to destroy what has taken years and years to establish, in terms of attracting some of the most capable and most experienced people into that public service. What you have decided to do is make the public servants in British Columbia second- and third-class citizens in terms of what other people expect in the labour field. That is a fact, and that has been said on all sides. I don't think the public servant....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, we have so many government members getting upset while we say those things. They protest so much that you have to wonder.... Really, there is a strong inkling of reality in that statement.

Mr. Speaker, I have already urged this government to consider really seriously that rather than making war on the public service....

AN HON. MEMBER: Make love.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, why don't you try to work with people? Why don't you try to consult people? Why don't you bring them in as friends, in terms of trying to resolve the problems of British Columbia — that is, the economic recession that currently plagues this province — and say to those public servants: "Yes, we've got problems. How can we help resolve them?" See them as partners in tho recovery program. But what you've decided to do is to declare war, and that procedure cannot help the province of British Columbia at all. Let's not forget that those thousands of public servants deliver essential services in this province; they carry out essential programs. If the taxpayer is to get the best value for their dollar, you have to have high morale, you have to have high productivity in the public service. I contend and our party contends that the morale in the public service is zero and the productivity is going to be virtually zero. You cannot tell people that they are second- and third-class citizens and expect them to work hard, particularly when many of them have given the best part of their lives to this province in terms of service.

I really urge this government, particularly because, living in Victoria and in this riding, knowing many of them personally and having talked to them over the last few months.... There is deep, deep concern and fear about what this government is doing, and it is not helping the course or setting a new course in terms of economic recovery in this province. Bill 2 is a major shift in policy. It is going to get you into nothing but trouble. I urge this government, rather than proceeding with it, to rethink, as has Delta council — it has finally come to its senses — your course of action and consult and try to find some resolution which is sane, and not crazy.

I hope the government will think about its actions, particularly if it wishes the people of British Columbia to believe that it is serious about consultation and finding compromises to our problems. Otherwise, all your rhetoric about conciliation and olive branches and wishing to discuss problems is meaningless and it is not to be believed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for New Westminster on Bill 2.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, there is a sound of surprise in the House — surprise that more than two or three members of our party would get up on a very destructive bill like this.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I watched you on TV tonight; you sure made a lot of sense, Mr. Minister — great sense. You didn't make any to the 500 in Ashcroft and Spences Bridge.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't lecture any member of the House.

MR. COCKE: I will lecture you or any other member that I like. Who the hell do you think you are?

[ Page 2461 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, might we have some order.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: You and Jack Munro went to the same language school.

MR. COCKE: That's right, and you're a preacher. Isn't that marvellous, coming from that lovely little preacher, who is party to this jackboot stuff that is going on in this province today. Your Christian ethics just make me wonder. Don't talk about Jack Munro. He's a decent human being. If I am categorized in his category, thank you very much; it was a compliment.

Back to Bill 2.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You both learned from Fryer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Might the members on the government side of the House show a little bit of restraint and allow the member for New Westminster, who has the the floor, to get on with the debate.

MR. COCKE: I think what we're looking at tonight is the destruction of an agreement, the total decapitation of an agreement. I have listened to the arguments of the government, mostly from their seats. Not very often do they get up and speak to their microphones and put their words on the record of the House, but what they are indicating is that there is a move afoot to put the public sector in exactly the same position as the private sector. I ask you: would this government or any other government have the audacity to stand up in this Legislature and introduce a bill that would render null and void an agreement between the private sector and its employees — that is, Mac-Blo and the IWA?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Only Barrett had the audacity to do that when he ordered the TWA back to work.

MR. COCKE: There was no way that touched a collective agreement. That member knows, and so does that very, very erudite House Leader, that it was a 90-day cooling off period. Every time they try to twist and turn, there's no way they can get around what they have done to this agreement. It's not a 90-day cooling off period. That member who just came back from Yugoslavia and had his lungs greased.... The fact of the matter is that this is a piece of legislation that rips up a collective agreement, rips it apart.

Here we are in the great free world, and what do we believe in in the great free world? The sanctity of contract, We believe that a contract between two parties, duly signed, is a contract with sanctity. This contract is between the government, or the Public Service Commission, and 45,000 employees. There are further contracts....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You are so bright. Why don't you get up and say your piece after I'm through?

This contract is not alone. There are further contracts....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: That member, who sits there and lectures from his chair.... That member should be back again running that credit union up in Penticton making it go broke as he is making the government go broke. It would be far less harmful if he were up there than down here, destroying things like this.

He asks a very interesting question. Would you find the clauses in this contract in other labour contracts? Yes, you would. If you don't know that, why don't you go out and do some homework, and then come back and make those statements? Why doesn't he come back into the House and make a speech, based on that very much in-depth kind of research that he is noted for, and show us the difference between this contract and the other contracts in the private sector? There is none. As a matter of fact, there are many contracts in the private sector that are far more encompassing than this contract....

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them.

MR. COCKE: As a matter of fact, I will give you one: FIR and the TWA.

AN HON. MEMBER: They get laid off from time to time.

[8:30]

MR. COCKE: There is, Mr. Speaker, in this contract, the right to lay off in exactly the same way that the....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: We have a third of our forest industry laid off right now, and that minister has the audacity to make that kind of a supercilious statement. Good heavens! Laid off with no recourse, as there is in any other contract, with the provisions of seniority, with the provisions of all that a normal, decent contract encompasses.

What this government wants is to take this and rip it up, start from square one and render the public service — and not just the BCGEU but the whole public service, representing 250,000 people serving the public of British Columbia.... Mr. Speaker, I should not level this at you — and I am certainly not levelling a charge — but I think you are, more than most of your colleagues, familiar with the whole question of collective bargaining and know, despite the fact that you were on the management side, that the collective bargaining situation works. You were kind of a tough guy. But that's fine — fair enough. That, at least, is fair ball when there is an opportunity for one side to take their position and the other side to take theirs. But once you resort to statutes, once you resort to acts of the Legislature to do your bargaining for you, then you have lost contact with freedom. I know that is hard for you, Mr. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), to understand. But that is precisely what happens when you do what this government has successfully done — providing they pass this bill. Looking at their record, there is every likelihood that they might — with closure, with all sorts of other devices.

I believe that when the Whip, who is now gone from the House, was replying to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) in terms of why make war and said, "What do you expect us to do? Make love?"....

[ Page 2462 ]

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: When you get through....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's your opinion.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member took his seat. I was wondering, under those circumstances, whether you would determine that he has completed his speech or lost his position in the debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I certainly recognized the fact that the hon. member did take his seat. I take it he lost his balance and was not giving up his posture in debate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, lost his balance. What was he smoking?

MR. COCKE: Neither smoking nor drinking, but the fact of the matter is....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you wish to in fact discontinue your speech, you may again retain your seat, but I expect you just momentarily lost your balance.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I won't do it again. But I am very tired of the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) jumping around, interrupting continuously in a vein that I find contemptible. He doesn't understand what I am saying or he chooses not to understand. Either way, it is a wonder that he would be appointed to the executive council of this province.

I again say that to alienate the entire public service of the province, whether or not the polls tell one that it is a good idea, will not pay off in the long run. In the long run, destroying a contract, destroying an agreement such as this by legislation, is about as far as you can go in bullying tactics. Now we've seen a great many of those tactics in the last few years, and we've seen a rendition in the last few months that would boggle one's mind. That is exactly what has happened.

I would like to suggest that part of the reason for ripping up this contract is to permit the government an opportunity to go outside the public service to get the work done that they wish done. You and I both know that there is very little fat in the system any more. Attrition has been working in this province for the last three years that I know of. Attrition to this extent.... When a worker retires, quits or has some other reason to leave, that worker is not replaced. We see a reduction in health care in terms of the number of employees out there in the public health sector. We see a reduction in virtually every other government service in this province — and a major reduction — over the past two or three years. We have seen probably the best example of what not to do — in 1977, I believe it was — when the government decided to get right out of public service to themselves. What they did at that time was take a whole group of public service employees, declare them redundant and build a Crown corporation called BCBC. Interesting, isn't it? B.C. Buildings Corporation has cost us infinitely more, in both ongoing, workaday costs and capital costs, than what we would have enjoyed had we left the whole thing where it was.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're absolutely wrong.

MR. COCKE: Absolutely right. The reason the minister can say that with some authority is that they no longer have to account for those dollars. We see in individual areas — I see it, for example, in New Westminster; I see it here in Victoria — the increase in cost of work done for the government just because of the fact they went that way. Not only that, we have certainly increased the capital costs in terms of interest and so on. At first they decided they would do it because they wanted to duck out of acknowledging debt. They've gone on doing it, and they justified it by saying it is not as costly. Look, Mr. Speaker, at the costs per ministry for the services that were rendered before.... Look at those costs now — add them up and compare them with any kind of inflation factor you want to, and you will find that they are infinitely more.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, for goodness' sake! On the periphery of this, so that.... I can't deal, naturally, with the wages, but I can deal with this: in the first year rents went up one third for all government offices. You know it, I know it. So did the cost of every one of the jobs that were done for government service. Read your own report sometime and find out how much you are paying for BCBC. It is going to curl what little hair you have left.

Public service should stay public, and the reason it should stay public is that it is less costly.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not true.

MR. COCKE: Not true? It is less costly. Every jurisdiction....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Isn't it interesting, Mr. Speaker? He says: "Speak to the bill." I'm saying that every jurisdiction that has tried it has found....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Because what Bill 2 does is provide that avenue to privatize more and more of the public sector.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I am arguing against contracting out. That is what you've been doing. You've destroyed the agreement, therefore you can contract out.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Where is it in the bill?

MR. COCKE: What do you mean, where does it say it? It is implicit in it, Mr. Speaker. He knows it, I know it, you know it and everybody else in here knows it.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: BCBC is all contracting out. BCBC contracts out. You control BCBC with your little manikins that run it for you.

[ Page 2463 ]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The cost of service increases. How do we know that? Evidence from every jurisdiction that has reported faithfully on this subject has told us that. I have item after item telling me that it didn't work in California, telling me that the whole American experiment didn't work, telling me that contracting out does not reduce costs, it increases them. Wherever it's been tried, it has failed. Mr. Speaker, that is what we're trying to talk about tonight,

But beyond that whole question of contracting out, is there any reason why it's important to a government to say to their employees: "We want you in a lesser position than any other bargaining unit in the province — a lesser position by far than any other union or group of workers in the province, outside of those who are working in the non-union sector"?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That is true, Mr. Minister, and that's the reason you're doing it. The reason you're bringing in Bill 2 is to provide the people that you found in your polls....

They were people who did not have the great love, maybe, of the entire populace. Having seen that, this government decided to destroy this agreement. I'm not going to go through.... I'm sure some of my colleagues have. There is page after page after page with yellow lines in it. Those yellow lines....

[8:45]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The yellow lines were put there by our research in consultation with us. Reading your bill, and reading the agreement....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: All right! Let's do the first yellow line. Let's go right to the beginning. And I want the minister to say "true" or "false." Here is a very interesting yellow line: "The general secretary of the union, or his or her designate, may sit as an observer in 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." True or false?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That, of course, is a rhetorical question, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Of course it's a rhetorical question.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "Sit down and I'll answer it." Sure, you'd like to close debate, wouldn't you? You're so used to closure. True or false?

HON. MR. HEWITT: This isn't question period. Get on with your debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May I have order, please. We will not have a question posed across the floor. You will refrain from entering into debate. I would ask the hon. members on the opposite side to refrain from interjecting. Would the hon. member for New Westminster return to Bill 2, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what he was calling for across the floor. He said: "You know it was false. Who put in the yellow lines?" and so on — the first one. I can go right through the book and he would give me exactly the same answer: "Sit down and I will answer." Sit down. Sure. He would close debate. That's what this is all about.

Mr. Speaker, when you go down this list.... "No collective agreement shall effect...." And then you go into all of those areas. You find that you have taken this agreement and ripped it to absolute shreds.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It's very interesting. We listened to his words this afternoon and, incidentally, we asked for a copy of those words and were kindly advised that we couldn't have a copy. Beyond that....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You see. Mr. Speaker? Just so that everybody understands and to put this on the record, we have not had a copy of the Blues in here since September 20.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Since September 20. There's a copy that you've got now.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Thank you. I'll pass that on to my colleagues. That's a very original situation. Look at them; those shelves are empty.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Why would I go to the Speaker and ask him if he's seen a copy of the Blues? More irrelevancies from from over there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, since you have raised that issue, I think that the Speaker should clarify that. That particular copy came from the back. You might return that. Thank you. They are now available in the House. The Speaker ruled that because of the obvious amount of work that Hansard had to cope with, the Blues were done away with for some period of time. They have now been reinstituted and they are available commencing with this afternoon's sitting.

MR. COCKE: Good. We appreciate that, believe me, because it is kind of nice to be able to sit down and look at what the minister said. We had no idea, incidentally, that they were available this afternoon.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, standing order 10 just to remind Mr. Speaker — that he shall not take part in any debate before the House.

[ Page 2464 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I am well aware of standing order 10. But I believe, as I prefaced my remarks, that I clarified the situation which had been originated by a ruling of the Speaker, and I thought it would be proper for the House to be aware of what has transpired because of that ruling.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We appreciate it.

I would like to refer to a couple of areas with respect to the whole question of contracting out, and I believe that that is partly what this is aimed at. I believe that when you destroy a collective agreement, then your objective is to do as much contracting out as you can. Let me quote from a document I have before me. It says here: "Numerous state government audits of state contracts have found repeated instances of imprecise specification of contract provisions, non-competitive bidding...."

HON. MR. CHABOT: Contracting out is not part of the legislation. If you want me to bring an amendment in, I will.

MR. COCKE: I want you to bring an amendment in.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That is not my job.

MR. COCKE: I want you to bring an amendment in on contracting out, and I will cease debate on that part of the issue. If you can say, right now, on a point of order or in any other way.... If you can communicate to the opposition that as a result of this there will be no contracting out, we will not only appreciate it....

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm not saying that.

MR. COCKE: Oh, well, that's interesting.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm just saying that contracting out is not part of this legislation.

MR. COCKE: Of course it is not written into the legislation. What the legislation does is make that possible If you destroy an agreement, then you make contracting out not only possible, but with this government probable; as a matter of fact, I would say almost mandatory. I can't understand that minister — or maybe I can. The fact of the matter is that he likes to throw as much sand into the gears as he possibly can. This bill is all about contracting out.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not true.

MR. COCKE: This bill is all about sending the public service to the lowest dimension that one can find in this province, beyond McDonald's Hamburgers. This piece of legislation is to put the public service behind any other workers in the province, other than those outside the organized sector.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about an issue that is not contained within this legislation. The issue of contracting out is not present in this legislation, in these amendments put forward here. If the member wants to persist with his debate on contracting out, I could readily put together an amendment that will bring in the question of contracting out — so that contracting out can take place. If he wants to continue with his debate on that issue, I will be glad to bring it in to make his debate relevant.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Inasmuch as the bill refers to items that will be included in a collective agreement and inasmuch as there is no provision in the present collective agreement....

MR. STUPICH: Not inclusion, exclusion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry. It provides for exclusions, and inasmuch as it does not specifically exclude contracting out and inasmuch as the present agreement does not refer to it, I would agree with the hon. minister. The bill does not cover the issue of contracting out and hence the discussion on it, I would conclude, is out of order. But before I make a formal ruling, the Chair recognizes the member for Prince Rupert on the same point of order.

MR. LEA: I just wanted to catch you before you made a ruling. We are speaking about the broad principles in second reading, as I am sure Mr. Speaker will agree, and if the member for New Westminster sees that the broad principle of this bill will bring about contracting out, in his opinion, then I would suggest that that is absolutely relevant and permissible to debate. You can't confine debate on second reading, when you are talking about broad principle, to what is here word by word. What we are talking about is what will happen if the bill passes, and that is contracting out. If the member believes that contracting out will come about by the principles of this bill, then it's purely relevant to the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I believe the member wished to comment on the point of order.

MR. COCKE: No, Mr. Speaker. I think I'll continue my remarks and you'll see how relevant I am with respect to this whole question.

If the minister wants to amend this section of the bill, then fair enough. But I will read you the portion of the bill that I see as giving the minister, the Public Service Commission and his and their minions the very power that I'm suggesting. Mr. Speaker, what does it say under 13(l)(c)? "...the organization, establishment and administration of the ministries and branches of government, including the right of the government to establish and eliminate positions" — fair enough — "to assign duties to positions, to establish work scheduling and to determine programs and services" — and here it is — "and the method of their delivery." Mr. Speaker, if that isn't clear to any thinking person in this province....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're wrong.

MR. COCKE: You know, they said we were wrong when in his first monumental piece of legislation "fire without cause" was there. That was just a little bit too evident. This is evidence enough for me. In any event, when you can an agreement....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I may, hon. member, just to answer the point of order that was raised, I see the position you are taking on that clause, and although I'm sure it's open

[ Page 2465 ]

to interpretation, I will entertain your interpretation and agree that it may well be within the broad principles of debate.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Fair enough. Very good.

The whole question, I believe, goes back.... As I said at the outset, I would like to read just a couple of little excerpts from some documentation we have: "Numerous state government audits of state contracts have found" — and listen to this very carefully, because you're going to be in this position — "repeated instances of imprecise specification of contract provisions, non-competitive bidding even when required by law" — we've seen a little hint of that around here — "and poor monitoring. This in turn has led to services required by the contract not being provided or being provided at a greatly inflated cost."

So let's look at the experience of some states. Would you like to listen to them? In a 1978 study in Minnesota, the task force on waste and mismanagement reported.... I could say it in a few words: a disaster. I'm not going to go through all the discussion here. If the minister would like to hear it, I could refer him to the documentation. There have been very few areas where there has been any kind of support for this kind of situation after it has come to flower. The conversations have gone over into the state of Illinois. After four years in that state, the state still cannot identify who is receiving consultation contracts, let alone whether they are needed in specific cases or whether they have been properly drawn, or whether the services contracted have actually been provided. You see, that is the danger.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I can recall vividly that in virtually every community in this province we had public servants out caring for public property — I'm talking about B.C. property — almost taking a personal proprietary care of that property because they felt very much a part of it. We dumped them and set up BCBC. And in dumping that group of valued public servants, what did we do?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "We absorbed them into BCBC." Some of them; many of them not. But that's neither here nor there. What happened was that that sort of proprietary interest in the provincial government's lot was lost — proprietary interest in what they considered to be part of their own. That, in my opinion, is what we can lose.

[9:00]

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to go any further on this. I'm sure that in the course of the next several minutes of debate others of my colleagues, and maybe even some of the government members, are going to admonish the minister: for crying out loud, get off this course. But what I want to do now, just for the closing minutes, because I see my time is virtually up, is not get down on my bended knee, but just ask the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, for heaven's sake to see some sense in what he's doing. I want to suggest to the minister that the way to peace and decent human relations, to a better and stronger province, is through trust. Oh, sure, there's got to be tough bargaining. I made reference to the Speaker presently in the chair, a tough bargainer, and there's nothing wrong with that. Sure, some people get angry, but the fact of the matter is that tough bargaining is one thing, but destroying collective agreements is something entirely different. When you do it with the muscle of government, it's indecent and wrong. It engenders a spirit of distrust for now and forevermore. Sure, public servants are vulnerable. Of course they are. People get angry when they wait for their car to be tested, a fishing licence or a bottle of booze or what have-you. They're getting equally angry now in banks. Isn't that interesting? I was 25 minutes in a lineup the other day to cash a cheque. Imagine that. It was almost like being in a government office — that shortage of staff.

If this government wants to engender trust, please don't destroy this or any other agreement.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I think that on both sides of the House we would agree that this is a serious piece of legislation. It is one that does take a collective agreement between management and employees and changes it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I'm not sure, Mr. Minister, and I'm not sure whether that's germane to the discussion.

Mr. Speaker, if you knew anything about collective agreements you'd know that they normally carry on under the old collective agreement until the new one is in place.

This piece of legislation does a number of things, I think probably the most damaging thing that it could do is to bring around a system of patronage. One of the Rhodes scholars at Oxford did his thesis on the British civil service. I'll readjust one short passage where he made the observation that patronage is the worst form of bribery. He says it is the worst form of bribery because of the incessant demands of officeseekers and the contemptible meanness and petty irritants attendant on a distribution of favours. He said that's intolerable.

MR. R. FRASER: You should read that in Ottawa.

MR. LEA: You could read it almost anywhere, Mr. Member.

First of all, I think we should decipher the difference between patronage and appointments by government of people who are appointed by order-in-council to do tasks at the senior level of government, because there is a difference. For instance, I think it's perfectly permissible for governments to appoint senior civil servants who are at least in agreement with the direction that government is going to go. Without that kind of agreement between senior civil servants close to the ministries it becomes almost impossible to carry out a mandate that any political party receives from the public. But patronage is a different thing altogether. Patronage is something that goes right to the very core of a civil service, and it can destroy not only the civil service but the people who work within the system. Therefore I agree with the thesis on the British public service that patronage is the worst form of bribery, because it does do a lot of damage, other than the fact that the patronage system itself is wrong.

I would think that the worst and most intolerable part of this bill is that it takes us backward in time. What it does is take away from a cooperative approach to management. I don't think it really matters these days if you take a business course in management for the public area or for the private

[ Page 2466 ]

area; one of the principles that's taught in all business courses these days is that you have a better chance of reaching a goal if all of the people working in the system have some say in establishing what the goals are and in establishing the methods of reaching those goals. If you can involve people in the system, consult with them and accept good ideas from the people who work in the system, regardless of the position they hold in the system, then the opportunity of success through cooperation and the productivity that can be realized from cooperation and consultation are well worth the effort. It has been proven time and time again to be one of the best management tools that you can employ: that is, to get the workers themselves within a system to help you set those goals and help you to reach those goals through cooperation. Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that if people do help set those goals, they will be much more willing, more efficient, more cheerful and more cooperative in trying to reach those goals.

To me, the worst part of this piece of legislation is that there was in the collective agreement a modicum of the kind of approach I've been talking about. Those are the things that have been attacked most viciously by this piece of legislation. The consultation is missing; therefore all of the rest will go missing. Cooperation, productivity and efficiency will all go missing. Probably the reason that government sees it this way is that most of the members of government — not the minister who entered this, I know — are people who have worked neither as employees with a collective agreement nor in management with a collective agreement. Most government members are from the small business sector or are professionals who have worked in areas where collective agreements have not been the order of the day. So it is understandable, I think, that they would have some lack of knowledge and experience in how it works.

Whether I worked on the management side with a collective agreement — and I have — or as an employee with an agreement, which I have, I found that in many cases the collective agreement helped, because benchmarks had been established and everyone knew what they were. I also found out that 95 percent of the time a collective agreement is not needed even if it's in place. Normally things work on a much different kind of relationship than that. Normally there's a human relationship between employer and employee. Usually the collective agreement is not needed, but every once in a while you will run across an employee who will not cooperate or go along with management in any way. At that point management finds it very useful to have procedures that can be followed laid out in a contractual form between management and the workers in order to carry out management duties. We call them labour agreements, but they are not labour agreements; they are agreements between management and labour, and therefore they are labour-management agreements, which are negotiated freely and signed by both parties. All too often in our society we refer to them as labour agreements, labour problems or labour negotiations, when in fact there are two parties. I think we would be more accurate and probably a little more helpful in the long run if we'd always refer to them as a two-way street. There are two parties involved who have agreed, after collective negotiation, on what that contract is going to say.

This piece of legislation takes away the ability of the worker to sit down with management, under a structured situation that has also been agreed to, and say: "Okay, what are we going to do about our pensions?" Section 13(l)(b) of the act says that no longer will the collective agreement be in force or in the future will it be a matter for negotiation in regard to pensions and the Pension Act. Well, pensions are an important part of all of our lives. It's incumbent on any employer to sit down and negotiate with the employees on the benefits in terms of the pensions that are going to be available. Where the money is going to be invested is also very important. We know that for years in this province the sole discretion of the investment of pension money paid by municipal and all government employees was with the employer, the government, We also know that over the years when the governments borrowed that money they called it "inside financing," which meant that the pension funds were borrowed by the government or by one of the government Crown corporations or agencies. For years those pension funds which were paid into by the employees were loaned back to the government at below market rate — an unfair practice.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Are you saying that pensions should be negotiable?

MR. LEA: I think they should.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: That's not true. They were not included, but they were not excluded. That is not something that was taken out after it was there. A little bit earlier, when my colleague for New Westminster was talking about the sanctity of contract, the hon. House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) from the other side said: "What about the PNE?" Quite frankly, when I look back on that, an action that I was part of when we were in government, I don't feel too good about it. It was a contract, and I think maybe we should have allowed it to live, because there is such a thing as sanctity of contract, and if you take that sanctity of contract away you are tampering with some trust in society. People won't be as trustful in the future entering agreements and contracts if they see governments, above all else, breaking agreements. We have it here again. We did it with the PNE. I would hope that we could learn from our experiences. There is no other way, in my opinion, that you can learn. We don't seem to learn from others. I remember the debate in this House during the time of the breaking of the PNE contract. I suppose I could have gone to Hansard and I could have looked up the remarks from all of the members on the opposite side who were here at the time. I could bring in quote after quote after quote about "sanctity of contract" coming from the Social Credit members when they were on this side of the House and we were government.

[9:15]

What I am saying is that this side of the House at that time, I think, had a point to make. I think maybe we should have listened. But because we didn't, that is no reason that this government shouldn't listen today to what we are saying now. We experienced it, but I think it is a danger to society when you deliberately set aside duly negotiated contracts between two parties in a democratic society, because once that contractual arrangement breaks down, most of our commercial aspects of our society will break down. What do we say when somebody in the private sector comes to us and there has been a breach of contract between two members of the private sector? What do we as legislators say to them? "Oh, we are upset — it is wrong; not very easy"? Can we say that if we vote yes to this legislation? It would be hard for us because of

[ Page 2467 ]

our PNE experience, so then there would be both parties in the same boat. I think that throws us into disrespect and I think it throws contracts into disrespect. Trust is out the window. When it comes right down to it, our whole society is based on trust. Even contracts themselves can be broken once trust disappears out the window. This kind of legislation is an attack on trust in a democratic society. For that reason alone, I think all members of the House should oppose it. Surely there is another way to achieve the same purpose.

If I understood the Premier correctly last week, he said that they were looking for another way to achieve the same purpose, but I have not seen any attempt by the government other than the words last week by the Premier. The actions since that time have been exactly the same as they were before the Premier made the statement.

No say in pensions. Mr. Speaker, someone who worked with my dad in the Trail smelters for 30 years gets a pension of under $200 a month. It's a crime, in today's world, to spend 30 years in the lead furnaces in a Trail smelter and end up with a pension under $200 a month.

What else is broken in this contract? What else are we going to see in the future? One of the things is that the employee is no longer going to have a say about job descriptions, the organization, establishment and administration of ministries and branches of government, including the right of the government to establish and eliminate positions and to assign duties and positions. Again, I don't think you can take a management course in today's world, whether you are taking a management course for the public or the private sector, where that management course doesn't say that the only way that you can have a cohesive, coordinated, cooperative force is if everybody knows exactly where they stand in the system and where their neighbours in that system stand — where that authority begins, not only yours but your supervisors, so that everyone has a clear view of the duties of everyone in the system, where their jurisdiction begins and where it ends. What better way to work out those kinds of arrangements than sitting down — the boss and the worker, management and the employee — and establishing the parameters, establishing it through negotiation, because once again, if it was done that way, your opportunities for success will be enhanced.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I've just had a ridiculous suggestion from across the floor: do I want 35,000 people to sit down with management and work it out? No, nor do I want — whatever it is — the 10,000 managers to sit down with the 35,000 people. It's a ridiculous suggestion, and I guess it hints at the member's regard for me and my brains, because to suggest that I would be making that suggestion would be ludicrous.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No, it's done through representation. It's done through representation from management and representation from the workers. As a matter of fact, that's how it has been done. So once again, what we're seeing here, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, is an erosion of the cooperative spirit, an erosion of consultation. Finally, what you're going to get is a workforce that will be disgruntled, won't know where they stand and will have no trust in agreements. And out of that, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that you will not get better productivity; you will get exactly the opposite.

Today I had occasion to go into the motor vehicle place over here on Menzies Street. I walked in there, and there was a lineup. It would build up and slow down, but I noticed that as there would be a few people waiting, one of the supervisors at the back would come out and take the wicket for a few minutes. There seemed to be a good rapport between the manager of that section and the employees. I can tell you another thing: I didn't see any slacking off. I saw people doing their jobs cheerfully, greeting the public cheerfully, and I suggest to you that most of the time that's the way it works. We all know of the exceptions, and to prove our arguments we always use the exceptions, and they're always there, especially in big organizations where there is bureaucracy. But if we want cheerfulness, if we want to be served by a public service that is cheerful, energetic, efficient and productive, then we have to include them in defining — as I said earlier — the goals and the way to reach those goals. If we don't do that, we aren't going to get it.

It's happened to me. We go in to deal with a civil servant and all of a sudden we find that the answer is no. In fact, we wonder why the answer is no so often when it doesn't seem that there would be very much problem to say yes. I haven't encountered that so much in the last few years since the employees have had a say in the collective agreement and in negotiating terms of reference. But years ago when the employees had no say, I think you got "no" more often. I think it came from the fact that it was the only power they felt they had; to say yes was no power. To say no at least was some vestige of power, that you had some say in something, that you had some authority over your own life.

Mr. Speaker, I say that the civil servants.... I hate to use those words — I hate to say that they're servants. I slip into it. They are public employees. I suppose it'll take a few years of getting used to that phrase as opposed to "public servant" before I'll say it every time. I really don't like the term "public servant." They are people who do a job of work for the public for pay.

Another thing that I found when I was part of government and I must say, to my surprise.... I was a minister of an on-line department. Highways could be more like a construction company in the private sector than a lot of other ministries which just regulate; there was actually something tangible at the end of the day in the Ministry of Highways. But I can honestly say that when I took that ministry over I expected to find slackers; I expected to find all of the things we hear about the public service, because I had been conditioned also. I didn't find it. I found a senior staff who were competent, willing and cooperative. I found middle management to be good. I found them frustrated, and I'd like for a moment to deal with why I think some of that frustration was there. The Social Credit like to say that we took over a smooth administration. I'd like to tell you one thing that I found. There were about four regions at the time and 34 districts. That very efficient private enterprise government administration that we took over from.... Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that each one of those districts wasn't even in the budget — there was no budgeted item for equipment? I found some districts that had six graders and needed three, and in the next district exactly the opposite. The guy who had the three extra graders wouldn't give them up for whatever reason, and the guy next door couldn't get any. So we did a very simple thing. We started budgeting them and charging them

[ Page 2468 ]

for that equipment. — The people who had extra equipment dropped it like a hot potato and those who needed equipment got it. Do you know how we arrived at that solution, Mr. Speaker? We arrived at it by talking with those managers and consulting with them, by making them feel part of the team and worthwhile as human beings in the workplace.

I'm a strong advocate of industrial democracy. We have watched it work in two economies in our recent history: in West Germany and in Japan. As a matter of fact, the Premier himself, when we were having dinner with Mr. Schmidt of West Germany at Government House one night, said: "Maybe we should go to Germany and find out how they do it." It's true. I don't think we can adopt all of the West German ideas into our system of industrial democracy, nor do I believe that we can bring all the ideas from Japan over here and do that either. But it's time....

In the throne speech itself this government asked for all sectors of the economy to cooperate and consult with one another, and to work for a common goal through cooperation. That was said time and time again during the throne speech. How can they ask the society that we live in to do that when we see that the first thing they do is take away the very measures that allow for consultation and cooperation in dealing with their own employees? We know from dealing with our own children that you learn from example, as opposed to lectures. What we are seeing here is an example of a government not doing what they preach nor what they've asked others to do. I believe they are going down the wrong path if they think they can do one thing with their own employees and ask other segments of society to work cooperatively to reach a common goal, even if that common goal is one of economic recovery.

This bill is going to be damaging to the province and the taxpayers of this province because, in my opinion, it will cost them more in the long run. You don't save money by having a surly, uncooperative, disgruntled workforce working for the public. You only have that when you treat others with respect for their ability to think, taking into consideration their experience in life itself and at the workplace.

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

This piece of legislation should not pass, because it is in direct contradiction to the principles laid out in the throne speech that we heard here not that many months ago. How can the government bring in a piece of legislation that contradicts the throne speech? The throne speech is not legislation but what it does is set the tone. It says: "Here is the thrust of government; here's what we intend to do until we have another throne speech." And all through that throne speech the word "cooperation" was the hallmark: a cooperative society. If we're expecting the labour force, management and government in this province to form itself into a tripartite organization, and if we're expecting cooperation at those levels, how can we point our finger at them and say, "Would you please do it?" when they can point their finger back at us and say: "You don't. You work against the spirit of cooperation. In fact, you brought in legislation that does away with it."

[9:30]

Not only is this bill bad enough in itself, but I think it's one that no one likes to see because it's retroactive. It takes a contract and doesn't say: "From now on the terms are going to be different." It says: "From now — past — the things that were agreed to will be taken away." In effect, it is retroactive legislation. I am surprised that the minister who brought this bill in did so. Not only was he at one point the Minister of Labour, but also he is a guy who knows what the collective agreement is all about. He didn't come to us out of the Ivy League. He didn't come to us out of academia. The minister who brought in this bill is a worker who had to work in the workplace with a collective agreement, both in management and as an employee.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: He may not have worked, but he had a job. It's surprising to me that this minister, with all his years of experience working with collective agreements in both government and the private sector, would be the one. I would think the minister responsible for the civil service would not only fight against this legislation in cabinet and in caucus, but would as a matter of principle refuse to bring it into this Legislature. I would be interested in hearing, when the minister is summing up — he didn't mention it when he opened the debate and moved second reading — the history that brought this minister to the point where he would forsake those years of experience and training to bring in this bill. I think he has an obligation to tell us how this bill is going to work to bring about better consultation, conciliation and cooperation. I think the obligation is there, Mr. Speaker. I cannot see how what I have been saying tonight can fall on deaf ears. I don't think I've been without common sense in discussing this legislation. I have tried to deal with it reasonably.

I have also pointed out that nobody is perfect. We made mistakes when we were in government and we paid for them. Probably worse is that other people paid for them too. This government is not perfect either. There are no absolutes in this life, and for the government to feel they are absolutely correct in doing this I think would be a mistake, first of all because they will harm themselves. I predict that this piece of legislation will hurt the government in terms of its public image, and therefore will hurt the government in terms of votes. I only mention that first because I know how dear votes are to we politicians. Often you can get through to a politician by mentioning vote counts as opposed to principles.

But it is not only going to hurt the government; it is going to hurt the people who pay the bills, the people the government is so fond of talking about — the taxpayer — and it is going to hurt the taxpayer in different ways. One very important way is that it is going to cost more money in the long run, because any piece of legislation that will take away from productivity will finally hurt the taxpayer in the pocketbook. But it is going to hurt the citizen in another way: in the kind of services they get and in the attitude they run into when dealing with public employees.

This bill is destructive, in my opinion, to the democratic process, destructive to the democratic fibre of this province and therefore should be voted against. In fact, I think this bill is so important that it is incumbent upon members of the opposite side to take their place and with serious debate tell me why the remarks made by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) in terms of contracting out are not applicable to the bill.

Interjection.

[ Page 2469 ]

MR. LEA: I would like to hear it. As I said, nobody is absolutely perfect. We are not on this side, that's for sure. I think it is incumbent upon the members of this Legislature who are going to vote for this bill to answer the charges that I am making. If they can't, what price democracy? If this bill will do to society what I believe it will do, then it is worthwhile being here until 1989 or 1988 before we pass.

Why are we in a hurry to destroy? Why are we in such a hurry to do something that has no immediate need even from the government's point of view? Why does the government need this piece of legislation? Just exactly what is it? There is no problem with laying public employees off; there are provisions for that. And if there were no provisions for that, it's my information that the British Columbia Government Employees' Union has said they will negotiate it if that's the problem; they will negotiate an orderly layoff procedure based on seniority, keeping in mind the program needs and the needs of the public in terms of those programs. They are willing to sit down, willing to talk about it, willing to consult. They are willing to negotiate and willing to cooperate.

To slap them in the face and say you don't want that cooperation, that they are not worthy of consulting and you don't want their experience, either life experience or work experience, is the maximum insult you can put at the doorstep of any citizen in a free society. We are all different, thank God, but we are all equal. That is what makes this society and every democratic society so great: the fact that we can be different and at the same time equal; the fact that we can be different and respect the other person for that difference. But to start not talking to one another, and ordering people around by legislation, is wrong. Sure, there's a time when a government has to be tough; everyone admits that. But that should always be the last resort of any government. Government's real role is to be creative, to be a catalyst, to be a facilitator; and this piece of legislation misses on all counts.

Again you have to ask yourself why a government would be determined to do what is going to happen if this piece of legislation passes. You're only left with one conclusion: that somehow or other they see it in the short term as enhancing themselves to the voting public. We can all read polls, and we've all taken them. We know that in today's society it is very unpopular to be a public employee, very unpopular to be a trade unionist. When you're both a public employee and a trade unionist, that's a double whammy, and it's not right for a government to take advantage of uninformed bigotry. That's what I think this bill does: it takes advantage of an uninformed section of our population. That is wrong. It is not too late. If the Premier was serious last week and wants to change the course of this government away from confrontation to cooperation, then this piece of legislation will not pass.

In conclusion, I make the plea, once again, for the government members who intend to vote for this bill — those on the government benches or those government supporters in the back bench — to get up and take their place in debate, and tell us why they see this bill as something that will be healthy for British Columbia, something that will be good and will bring around cooperation and peace in British Columbia, because above all else we need peace. Mr. Speaker, remember what this parliament and the parliament of Canada is all about: peace, order and good government. This bill will bring about no peace. It will bring about disorder, and it will make the government a bad government.

MR. KEMPF: Certainly I would stand in my place and speak in favour of, and in fact vote for, Bill 2, but that is not my intent in taking my place at this time. I would ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery with us this evening are three lovely ladies from Victoria, who vehemently support Social Credit in Victoria — all three of them. They are: Sharrone Douglas, Lorraine Frances, and the lady of my life, Norma Witter. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I take my place in this debate on the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1983. Although I enjoyed hearing the introduction made by the member for Omineca, I regret that he only made an introduction. I was really hoping he would stand up and take his place in this debate. Are you prepared to?

MR. KEMPF: Do you relinquish your place?

MRS. DAILLY: It would be interesting to be able to follow, just once, a proper debate in this House. What has been happening throughout all of this government's legislation since we first arrived here, since the legislation was first presented for debate, has been what you might call a very strange one-sided debate. That's what I'm discussing right now: the debate on this bill. As well, it would be a much more interesting debate if someone from the back bench particularly of the government side would get up and explain to us why they support the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1983.

[9:45]

The people in the gallery must find it rather interesting that all of the debate presented here tonight has been against this bill. They have not heard anything in favour of it, and I can almost be sure they will not until the minister ends by reading a prepared statement in which he will outline to the House the cabinet's reasons for this.

Perhaps some of the back-benchers agree with the amendments to the Public Service Labour Relations Act. But just thumping their desks, just filling their seats for an evening session, to be sure that if a vote comes they won't be outvoted, is, in my opinion, not taking their full responsibility. I really believe it would help this debate immensely if we could hear more reasons from the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I will now move on to the actual sections of the bill, in deference to you as the Speaker — not, may I say, in deference to the members from the other side who are asking me to speak to the bill, when they won't ever get on their feet to speak on any of the bills.

Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me, in my hand, something which I know other members of the NDP have brought forward to the members of the House since this debate started earlier today. It's called "Master Agreement Between the Government of the Province of British Columbia, Represented by the Government Employee Relations Bureau, and the B.C. Government Employees' Union." This is a little blue book, but it took many months and years of hard bargaining and negotiation and discussion between the government and the members of the union to produce this book. The reason the official opposition is so much against what has been brought forward tonight in this bill is that despite all the

[ Page 2470 ]

hard work that went on.... I know you, Mr. Speaker, have a union background and would be aware of what I'm saying. A tremendous amount of work went into producing this master agreement between the government and the public service employees.

Here we are tonight, by this act, being asked to wipe out a number of hard-fought agreements, which were agreed to, remember, by the government, signed by the government's representative. It's all right to fight hard, from the government's point of view, and withhold from the unions certain areas that they refused to give in on; that is the natural way of bargaining. But I tell you, Mr. Speaker, only a very regressive, reactionary government would take away from a union what they have already fought for. This is the issue here tonight. We could debate for many hours the pros and cons of some of the agreements here; you and I and others could have a lot of agreement and disagreement on them. But the basic principle that we're fighting here tonight is that once government has given, through full collective bargaining, certain agreements and agreed to them and signed for them and made official contracts between government and employees, it has no right to bring into this House a piece of legislation that wipes out parts of that collective agreement. The worst part of this bill is that from everything we have been able to see and to study in the amendments, what has been eliminated pretty well guts the whole collective bargaining aspect of the union.

It's interesting to note section 1.02, which was signed and agreed to by the negotiators for the government and for the union. It says: "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." In other words, this article 1.02 on future legislation states that if anything is removed the parties shall negotiate a mutually agreeable provision to be substituted. This was signed by the Social Credit government and agreed to by the Social Credit government. Yet here tonight we are being asked to support a piece of legislation brought before us that removes certain items which are obviously not being negotiated any further. In fact, we are being asked to pass this bill. Once it's passed, that's it. Talking about negotiations after the fact has now become almost a farce. Apparently the two groups have had very little opportunity to meet properly and negotiate. The union knows that this bill is hanging over their heads. They know that the government has a large majority and that they can ensure that it will be passed in time.

It is not the essence of each article that we are here to fight for. After all, we are not representing the unions; we are representing the people of British Columbia. If we stand here and allow a bill to pass which is going to abrogate the word of the government, which was signed in good faith, then we are saying to the people of British Columbia that we agree that the Social Credit government has a right to break contracts with the workers of this province. Once a government takes upon itself the right to break contracts, legally signed and signed by themselves, then we must ask ourselves who is next in this province. How can any citizen who thinks carefully about this matter possibly have any faith in or respect for a government which gives this kind of leadership? It is really reprehensible, because it is not the leadership that a government should be giving to the citizens of British Columbia. Instead we find that it is a very heavy-handed, autocratic move by a government which wants to gets its way with the public service unions without having to go through proper negotiation.

I believe the government is acting as a bully, because they have taken on the public service sector again. They've already done it in another bill, and here we have it again in this bill. They have helped to build up in the public's mind a myth that the public employees of British Columbia have had it so good that it doesn't matter what you do to them, and that the only way you can bring about restraint is to give it to one sector of society as hard as you can. That again shows that this government is not fit to be leading this province. In a time of recession we don't need punitive, hard measures, or a government to lead us into breaking contracts. That's the last thing needed today.

As many of the other speakers in the NDP have said earlier tonight and this afternoon, the best thing that could be done by any government that has particular problems today in wondering what to do in a time of recession, and who are unable to handle some redundant programs in the public service, is to sit down with their employees and negotiate together properly. But not the Social Credit government. They are trying to do two things at once. They're trying to reemphasize in the public's mind that the public service of British Columbia is fair game for any kind of kicking around, and at the same time they're also attempting to get themselves out of difficulties which they've put themselves into. They are doing this by turning the public service of British Columbia into second-class citizens. The NDP can in no way sit here and let that go by. That's why we're very disappointed that no one on the other side seems to have anything to say about this important piece of legislation.

This kind of thing happened many years ago. It seems years ago that I stood on my feet debating Bill 2, and I remember at the time I went through the history of the public service. I won't bore you with that again, Mr. Speaker. But I remember going through the history of the public service and pointing out how in the twenties they were at the mercy of whatever government happened to be in. If the government was kind to them, they got something; if the government wasn't, they got nothing. The only thing that has protected the public service from that kind of behaviour from governments today has been this blue book. If you don't have a collective agreement, it means that we're going back to the old days where government becomes the benefactor and decides when and where they will improve the conditions of the public servant. That is all I'm saying.

I don't understand why the government is so afraid of facing the public servants of this province and negotiating with them the very things that they have put in this bill and are attempting to move out of the act without proper negotiation. We still don't know why it was necessary to do it this way. As I said when I started speaking this evening, putting aside what is being removed in this bill, underlying it is a basic principle of the heavy hand of government having to bring in a bill to push through these changes instead of sitting down and continuing to negotiate with the employees. That's the basic issue that we don't understand. The only way that I can understand it is that the government is a bully....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, one moment please. Can we have some degree of quietness in the chamber while the member is on her feet, please.

[ Page 2471 ]

[10:00]

MRS. DAILLY: I know that it must be boring and tiring for some of the members here to have to listen to these speeches, but as boring and tiring as it may be to them, this happens to be one of the most vital pieces of legislation that's gone through this House for many years, because underlying it is the principle which I have just been speaking about. Underlying it is a principle of complete repudiation of a contract duly signed by a government with a group of citizens. That is not a thing which should create yawns, but unfortunately it does with some of the back-benchers. Unfortunately the public of B.C., by and large, out there are struggling along to meet their problems today in holding their jobs and in trying to survive in a recessionary period, and I'm sure that the basic principle of what is being done to a group of union people having their contract broken is not a "grabber." The things that appear most dull in debate are often the most important. That is why I intend to continue speaking tonight and to bring up further points on this bill.

[Mr. Reynolds in the chair.]

I know earlier this evening one of my colleagues was discussing his great concern over the whole area of contracting out. I realize the question as to whether this bill allows for that could be open for debate. Section 13, as amended, says this: "No collective agreement shall affect...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 this is the part, Mr. Speaker — "and to determine programs and services and the method of their delivery...." We contend that that could apply to the whole area of contracting out. One of my colleagues attempted to point out to the minister who brought this bill in that his government already has embarked on a very dangerous program with this massive move toward contracting out of the public service.

If I may, I want to make a couple of points on this. I hope that when the minister winds up his debate he will tell us what kind of studies have been made by his government in the whole area of contracting out versus leaving it with the public service. I have some studies in front of me, and perhaps the minister in conclusion will be able to tell us of some of his studies, because we know that the Social Credit government and that minister obviously believe in the contracting out of public services. If I may quote from some of these studies that have been done:

"When the costs of contracting out are considered, some jurisdictions forget the 'hidden' costs for contract administration, including" — and I'd like to list some of them — "contract preparation and monitoring the contractor's performance. Renegotiation costs should also be considered. The federal government uses 4 percent of the total contract cost as the incurred expense for contract administration. However, we feel this figure is too low."

That is one of the things that I wish the government would consider when they are even looking into the area of contracting out.

"One recent example of higher costs as a result of contracting out" — and I have to refer to other cities here, Mr. Speaker — "involved custodial services in New York City. The city's human resources administration had for many years contracted with private vendors to provide custodians for some buildings and increased this practice when freezes were imposed on hiring new city employees. AFSCME District Council 37, believing that public employees could do the same job cheaper, sponsored a study comparing public and private costs."

That's really what we're asking: has the government ever done this?

"The study showed that in many of the locations being serviced by outside contractors, the work could be done more efficiently by city employees. As a result, the city, accepting the validity of the union's study, has so far cancelled contracts at six locations. In Troy, New York, management and union cooperation also proved that publicly provided services — in this case, street maintenance work — can be more efficient than work done by private vendors. After privately provided street maintenance costs skyrocketed...."

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I made this point a little earlier that the section of legislation she is referring to.... She infers that it addresses the question of contracting out, and my point is that it does not. She is embarking upon debate.... It is not within the bill. If she wants to debate the issue of contracting out, maybe I can bring in another amendment to make sure that she is in order, but in the meantime she is out of order.

MRS. DAILLY: It seems quite clear to us that this bill refers to giving the government the right to set the whole method of their delivery of services. What else could that mean but that the government will have the right if they so wish, to contract out? I am just simply saying to the minister.... Hopefully — and he says he would bring in an amendment to do it, so it is quite clear that he is in favour of it — when he closes this debate.... I just wish that he would bring in some studies of his own. We consider this to be very serious, and it is tied in with the whole area of this government's handling of the public service. If the minister feels I am out of order, in deference to the minister and to you, Mr. Speaker. I will go back to other sections of the bill which state that certain clauses of the collective agreement will be deleted, and I will express our concern over them at this time. The bill repeals section 13 of the act, as we all know. This basically eliminates the power of the union to bargain collectively any issues other than wages and the placement of individuals within the classification system. It guts the current collective agreement, and if passed will all but destroy unionism within the public service. We want the minister and some of the back-benchers to stand up here and tell us what right this government has, what mandate were they given, to gut the whole collective agreement that was already signed by them in the past. I do not believe that the people of British Columbia are carrying on a vendetta against the public service that would bring this about. We all know there are cases where people get tired of waiting in lineups; we have been through all that before. But to build up a myth against one group of society so that you can bring in a massive basic change to their working conditions and their whole life as workers is what I consider to be rather reprehensible. Why is

[ Page 2472 ]

this bill bring brought in, which will almost eliminate collective bargaining for the public service?

What I don't understand.... Why not be honest? Why is the government not honest and straightforward with the people of B.C. and its public servants, and why don't they come out and simply bring in a bill that eliminates the right of the public servants of British Columbia to have any bargaining at all? What they are doing is giving a slow death to, and making a mockery of, collective bargaining for public servants in British Columbia. I think people would say: "At least they have come out and we know where they stand. They don't believe in collective bargaining." Instead of that they are trying to pass a bill that almost literally does the same thing: it destroys collective bargaining. Yet that minister will stand up in conclusion and try to suggest to us that this is not so. That is why the NDP are on their feet debating it, because we believe that in essence you are destroying collective bargaining.

I made notes of your speech, Mr. Minister; I really did. But how on earth can you have a blue book like this and then bring in a bill which nullifies and removes without any negotiation many of the agreements that have been signed by your government and by the union? Then the minister tries to suggest that there is not a basic attempt to eliminate collective bargaining for public servants.

Section 13, as it reads now, in the blue book states: "Every collective agreement shall include all matters affecting wages or salary, hours of work and other working conditions, except...." In effect this was a special clause, a residual clause giving the union the right to bargain working conditions, with certain defined exceptions. You see, Mr. Speaker, there were exceptions there which were agreed to by the union in past negotiations. If the government was able to work with the union in the past and work out exceptions mutually agreed to, why on earth then this year, in 1983, do they have to bring in a piece of legislation that forces these exceptions onto the union? What is different from a year ago, or the years before? What was wrong? What is the reason for this legislation? That is the basic question that is being raised here tonight. The union obviously agreed to exceptions before.

This clause is repealed and the amendments to this section clearly and severely restrict or abolish bargaining on a wide range of issues which have hitherto been agreed upon in collective agreements. Clause 13 (l)(a) of the current act provided that the collective agreement should not affect the principle of merit in the appointment and promotion of public service employees. That is really an important one. In practice, this clause has been interpreted to mean that the application of the merit principle can be bargained. This has been reflected in collective agreements. But this new bill that has been brought in without negotiation 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, therefore, will free the government — this is the important part; this is what concerns the NDP and many others, if this bill passes — to appoint widely from outside the public service and should be seen as a clear attempt to undermine a professional public service and restore a patronage system.

Mr. Speaker, when I was reciting the history of the public service of British Columbia, starting from the 20s, there was one particular example I used in the days before the union had their collective agreement and protection from it. That was cases where public servants could be moved out of jobs, into jobs, demoted, promoted — not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of how they got along with their employer. We have to ask, why has this been removed? It is something that was fought for over the years by the union, and it is being wiped out in this piece of legislation that we are being asked to pass tonight.

I think the minister owes it to the House to tell us how he is going to ensure that there will be no patronage. How is he going to ensure that this won't happen now, once he has removed what was previously in the blue book?

I know that the days of the idea that "you can trust us".... We've heard that on almost every piece of regressive legislation that's been brought into this House by the Social Credit. "Trust us, it'll be all right." I don't care if they're the best government in the world. Somehow or other I don't think they are. Even if they were, the best government in the world must at least ensure that what is policy is written so that it cannot be wiped out at whim. It must not be put into pieces of legislation or into agreements and then withdrawn by whim. We can't afford to trust any government on things like this, Mr. Speaker. That is not the way governments should be run today. That's how our civilization has advanced, because those days of one-man rule, the decisions being made on the basis of what the person in charge felt, are long gone. I recall, even when I first came to this House, before the public servants had their full collective bargaining, the former Premier — the father of the present Premier — would announce at public service banquets what the increases were going to be. Now, Mr. Speaker, whether the increase was a tremendous increase or not, and whether it would make most of the public servants exceptionally happy, that is not the way that government should be handling the matter of wage negotiations with their employees. If the Social Credit government thinks that just because they want to turn back the clock in everything they can actually turn back the clock on the whole tradition of bargaining between employee and management, I think even the Social Credit government is taking on a bit too much here.

These are the things that we cannot understand. This government somehow or other wants to clear the decks so that they are not hindered by collective agreements any more, so they can move at whim with their employees as was done years ago, before collective agreements came in.

[10:15]

Mr. Speaker, clause 13 (l)(a), as I mentioned, dealt with the removal of the merit principle, and I've expressed our concern over that. This amendment centrally challenges article 12 of the master agreement — the service career policy. The current provisions that would be threatened or removed include.... Here are examples. I know this was read to the minister earlier, but it was in the afternoon and this is the evening. He's been sitting here a long time, so I want to refresh his memory.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, just in case it isn't, I'll just read over it. Current provisions that would be threatened or removed include the 12.08 article — and that's the posting of job vacancies. Remember, this will now be removed. "Union observer on selection panels; appeal procedure for unsuccessful in-service applicants; protection of the employee against relocation; seniority of auxiliary employees applying

[ Page 2473 ]

for regular positions." Elimination of these provisions in a collective agreement undermines the notion — and this is the issue — of a public service career.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that once that is eliminated, it's not the public servants themselves, alone, who are going to suffer from this. Everyone will suffer, because whatever we think of the public service, we know that it can be a very rewarding and challenging career. We know that all politicians, particularly when they move into the area of cabinet and accept a ministerial appointment, depend greatly on qualified career public servants, deputies, etc. Mr. Speaker, if you are going to eliminate the whole incentive for the public servant to make a true career of being a public servant, not only they will suffer but all the taxpayers will, because you do need a good public service to assist the ministers in running government. These things that are being done by the Social Credit government through this bill may ultimately come back to haunt them. They may find themselves in great difficulty in finding people who are truly committed to being public servants and who want to make it a life and a career. If you remove from them some of these basic underpinnings which public servants must have in order to feel that they are secure and can move ahead and make a career of it, what are you going to have left?

I wonder if the minister in charge of this bill has really given thought to this. As a matter of fact, I hope he will tell us how all this really came about. Did he sit in his office with some of his deputies and bureaucrats around him and say to them: "I want an act brought in that will eliminate many of the features of collective bargaining"? Or did he get instructions from the cabinet or from the Premier? Who gave these instructions? Why, Mr. Speaker? What was wrong with carrying on, as most governments in our country do, with proper bargaining? I don't think any other province in Canada has decided that no longer do they want to sit down and bargain properly, and instead are bringing in legislation which is actually eliminating the rights of much of the bargaining procedures which took place before.

So I think the minister should explain to the House what is really behind this legislation, Mr. Speaker. Why was it brought in? No one knows. I hope that overused word "restraint" will not be brought up again in this kind of bill, because there is far more to this bill than any attempt to say that this is for restraint. This bill deals entirely — as my colleague has just said — with power. This deals with the power of a government that feels that it's easy to pick on one sector — the public sector — because they don't think the public will be too concerned. But they have no right to treat anyone in this province as a second-class citizen.

Those are my primary reasons. I don't know all the details and ramifications of this contract. That doesn't concern us right here and now. What does concern us is that this contract was made and signed by the government with its employees, and no government has the right to come out with a piece of legislation that breaks that contract.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, in entering this debate tonight, I certainly don't stand up as an expert on collective agreements. Of all the things that I've encountered throughout my lifetime, being part of a bargaining process has not been one of my more memorable experiences. Maybe I've led a sheltered life, and maybe other people have always done my bargaining for me. I don't stand up here as an expert on these matters. I think a person has to take a very quick sort of cram course in various parts of contracts, and it's a subject which I think necessitates a great deal of expertise.

Beyond the expertise, I think you also need a sensitivity to what is being attempted to be achieved. I think the time when we had the master-servant relationship has long since gone by. Whether we are willing or whether they were grudgingly given over the years, since we began knocking people on the head in the coal-mines of Mr. Dunsmuir just up the Island a little piece, we've had people gradually fighting and achieving more and more rights to determine not only where they will work but how much they will get paid for their work, and also the working conditions under which they have to operate.

So, Mr. Speaker, I don't come here as any lofty expert in participating in the debate on this bill. As a matter of fact, I'm a bit resentful about having to do it at all, in the sense that we have to do this sort of thing in the dead of night. I don't think that it's necessary to go all night in order to achieve a certain kind of legislative package. There might be some arguments about that from the other side because they feel that they have been forced into this by the intransigence of the loyal opposition. However, I don't know — I've looked through the standing orders, and somewhat through Beauchesne and Erskine May, and I find nowhere in there that it says that if the government brings forward 30 bills in a particular session, somehow it's incumbent upon us to deal with all of them. I don't think it is.

I think that we've had considerable experience with many Legislatures, including the one down in Ottawa, in which we had one session that lasted for, I think, almost three years — one single session in which they attempted to put through a very large but very controversial legislative package....

But that package is always subject to change, additions and deletions, and perhaps that's what we should be considering here. So I don't feel any obligation that because the government trots forth 30 bills, some of them extremely controversial — the "dirty dozen" plus a few sleepers — I should have to give up my nights in order to help the government get them through, especially, too, when I object so strongly to some of them.

These people will say: "Well, after all, why should the public servants have any rights anyway?" Traditionally the public servant traded the rewards he might have in the jungle if he went into private enterprise.... He might trade that for the security, the gold watch and the golden handshake some 30 years down the road. He would trade that for, oh, better salaries and the chance to get ahead. Maybe it was a nice, quiet, tranquil repository for those people who really didn't have much ambition. That was the traditional view of it. Many people did not work in the public service in the old days, because the public service was considerably smaller. Maybe it's that yearning for the old days that prompts this legislation tonight — the yearning that if we would get back to simpler days, somehow all would be right with the world; if we could only trim off the fat, all would be right with the world.

It's ironic that tonight, when the Government Employees' Union is meeting in plenary session to determine their course — what they will do in response to moves on the part of the government — we should be debating this bill. I don't know what the outcome will be, but I will hazard this as a guess, as a former public servant myself: it will take a great deal to provoke the public service into any kind of militant action. I have been through enough agreements, or attempts to achieve

[ Page 2474 ]

agreement, on the part of various school districts in the province to know that at least that group of public servants — which incidentally, I am aware are not covered under this bill, but just to use it as an analogy from my own experience.... It's very difficult to provoke — or it has been, traditionally — schoolteachers, for one, into any sort of militant, precipitous action.

I presume that the same thing is true of the other public servants. If they take job action, it will only be as a last resort. If they are pushed into some sort of job action, it will be because they find no other alternatives acceptable to them. No amount of rhetoric on the part of their leadership is going to change that at all. They are not going to be whipped up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Garbage!

MR. ROSE: Give me an example of a strike in the public service that you've heard of — job action of any kind. We had a one-day work stoppage on the ferries last summer — a year ago. When have we had one recently? Nevertheless, I don't think public servants are going to sit there lany longer like cowed slaves and take everything that's handed out to them. If that's what you want for Canadian citizens — to be beaten like the whipped Taiwanese or the Koreans, or other people who have no rights, then that's what you.... You might as well stand up and say that that's really what you're after. What you are really saying is that you have no respect for the dignity of those people who devote their lives to public enterprise.

It wasn't always so that we had a lot of people employed by the public service. Again, I hope it's not tedious repetition, but I repeat: I don't think that we have quite got used to the complex society that demands it. Even Reagan in the United States was supposed to be such a model of cutbacks. He was going to slash the public service, but he hasn't been able to do it because those people are needed in society. When we weren't dumping tons of chemicals into the atmosphere of Ashcroft or Spences Bridge, we perhaps didn't need pollution control inspectors either; when we had a smaller population and fewer fires, we didn't need a clean-air inspector. When we had no automobiles, of course, we didn't need vehicle inspectors either. We haven't got them now, but what I am attempting to say is that we lived in a much simpler society, and naturally we didn't think we needed so many.

If people grew up on the farms, we didn't need as many school teachers, right? If we had extended families and people looked after their own, more or less, in spite of the Dickensian conditions that we have read about in the past — the tremendously harsh lives that people half led until an early death — we perhaps didn't need any child abuse teams or old people's homes or social workers or people who dealt with the problems created not just because man is necessarily evil, but because we live in a far different society now than we did when we had only a rural agrarian society. We had no need for a toxic-waste dump in Ashcroft 40 years ago, because we didn't have chemical industries with such an intensity that we needed to take that poison and find a place for it. I agree with the minister: we have to find a place for it. The question is, as he points out, that nobody really wants it. We are probably not going to have a public dump up there anyway; we will probably have a private one somewhere.

When I began speaking about the number of people employed in public enterprise compared to a number of years ago, I was thinking how it compared to my own family. My own family, like most people's family, consisted of a father and a mother....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: It is kind of nice if it works out that way.

MR. REID: "Would anybody in the room with a conscience stand up" — is that what you are saying?

[10:30]

MR. ROSE: No, I am not asking for any public confessions here this evening.

Anyway, my father worked, and most of the time he was lucky he worked. He didn't work in the public service; he worked for private enterprise. Incidentally, the company for which he worked has since been bought out, and the jobs have disappeared. The main industry of my community has now disappeared because it sold out to American ownership. We still have the label, and it is called Aylmer, but it is produced in the United States. He worked and my mother stayed home. That is unusual now. Today, in order even to buy a house, two people in the family have to work; it is quite different. We really didn't come in contact with many public servants. I can't recall, other than school teachers and the policeman, any public servants in the town where I grew up. Obviously they were there; they might have been somebody like the town clerk or something like that.

But getting back to my family and the public service, what is of particular interest to me.... I have a brother who works for private enterprise and is doing very well. He is an achiever. He knows what it is to meet a payroll and all those fine things that people should aspire to in this life if they are not slackers who end up in the public trough like politicians do. Both my brother and I have three children. It didn't seem to matter that I worked in public enterprise and he worked in private enterprise: we produced only three children each. I want to tell you about these three children.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they boys or girls?

MR. ROSE: Just hang in there and I will tell you.

Incidentally, let me tell you about my father and private enterprise. By the time he was 63 1/2, he paid into his pension.... That is in the bill. That is right on order, Mr. Speaker, because 13(b) talks about pension. He got fired. He didn't have any vesting so he didn't get any money out of it. That was his experience with private enterprise: they didn't have to pay his pension.

I have two daughters who are schoolteachers. They both work in the public service. I have one who works night and day in private enterprise — in Surrey, as a matter of fact.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I think she is being exploited, but I told her to keep quiet because she had no rights, and therefore if she didn't shut up she might get fired.

MR. REID: That won't happen in Surrey.

MR. ROSE: Well, I don't know about Surrey. What they might do, as this bill allows, is relocate her and fire her somewhere else because they couldn't fire her in Surrey.

[ Page 2475 ]

They can relocate this person anywhere. I hope she does a good job for the firm for which she works, even though I think the hours she has to work....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Is this really relevant to the bill?

MR. ROSE: Well, it really is. I was trying to explain the growth of the public service in my own family. If it has happened in my own family — which we could call, say, a lower-middle-class family, with pretensions toward upward social mobility.... Anyway, I think we have to call it like it is.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Some of us pretend to upward social mobility more actively than others.

Two daughters, two schoolteachers; one works in private enterprise. One niece is a schoolteacher and one is a nurse; one nephew works for a Crown corporation, Out of those six — the gang of six — of the third generation, you can see how it has gone. It went from one person working in private enterprise to one in private and one in public enterprise — I consider politicians to be working in public enterprise, even though I don't think all you guys over there are lazy.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I don't know whether or not they're working. But listen, don't lose that job, because if you ever do you might have to go to work, and that would probably be a great shock to you.

It has gone from one to one to five out of six in public enterprise. That is really the growth of the public service in one microcosmic example — one family.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'll tell you what happened. My father and mother sacrificed; they sent me away to school. One of the things they said was: "What you should do is learn some big words. If you're going to go on to school, what you should do is at least sound as if you've been there. It really doesn't matter whether or not you've got any brains, As long as you can use a lot of big words, it will baffle a lot of people." I don't know how to pronounce all the words, like some of my friends across here, but as I encounter some big ones I attempt to learn them.

When we're talking about public servants, we're talking about the relatives of just about everybody in this room. I defy anybody in this room to stand up and say they do not have some relative — maybe not a direct relative, but at least a relative — who isn't employed in some form of public service, either through a Crown corporation....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I don't.

MR. ROSE: Well, if you have no relatives, Mr. Minister, that's not my problem.

All we know is that there are roughly 250,000 of them in this province alone, so I think there's a good chance that most people in the room have relatives working in the public service. Therefore to remove the rights of such a vast group of people is a political act of some bravery, I would think — to risk that kind of a name for no other reasons than political ones. You cannot make a scapegoat of, and label, a whole group of people and take away their rights, without their feeling that somehow they have been betrayed. They have spent their lives preparing themselves to make a positive contribution within the public system because they were urged to do so; at the same time you can't say to them: "Because you've done so, forever and ever you are guaranteed a job." But that isn't what the collective agreement says. The collective agreement says that if there are certain redundancies in the kind of service we don't need any more, there are ways of negotiating out of it. But you don't want to negotiate at all; you want to come in here with a bill, with your 35 to 22, push everybody around and get it passed tonight — if we'd let you. We're not going to let you.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you about one of my first recollections of politics. Some people — to get to the bill — have suggested that the changes that have been put forward in the bill can lead to patronage, a system that we abandoned when we developed the merit system of competitive examinations and consultation about employment, relocation and job classification, which are all gone out of here. Isn't that right? The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) nods his head. They're all gone. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) applauds because he doesn't believe they should be there in the first place. That's fine. That's his opinion; his opinion will undoubtedly prevail.

I'm sorry that the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) isn't here. My house was on the street, leading to what we then called the government barn. There was this government barn. I'll tell you what the government barn was for. This goes back to the old days when the graders and everything were pulled by horses. He was on his way to the government barn — we'll call him Mr. Smith.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, I'll ask the member for New Westminster and the member for Omineca to go out in the hall and talk to each other and let the member for Coquitlam-Moody continue.

MR. ROSE: I was giving a little "anticdote" about my first encounter with patronage in government.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'm glad you asked that question. I was perhaps 9 or 10 or 11 about that time; it was in the thirties. Apparently there had been an election. I saw a neighbour — we'll call him Mr. Smith; that wasn't his name — heading to the government barn; he drove a grader. I heard my mother say: "Well, I'm sure glad that so-and-so won the election. Now Mr. Smith won't lose his job." Whenever an election occurred in British Columbia in the thirties, thousands of people who were civil servants, right down to the people who worked on the roads as grader operators — originally driving horses and later mechanized — lost their jobs. They happened to pick the wrong horse. But when we brought in such things as recruitment by posting competitions and the merit principle for promotion, we made certain that the delivery of services would come through the public service instead of

[ Page 2476 ]

giving out jobs for the boys to contractors who were favourable to the government. We began to develop a stable, confident and professional public service. So whether or not Mr. Smith had a job the next day didn't depend on who won the election. That was my first recollection. What frightens and troubles me is that perhaps we might be returning to the time when if you're a public servant and you don't watch it, you can be out — not on assignment, just out. Along with Bill 3, this gives the government the opportunity to fire people without cause. That's not the kind of future towards which I think we should be heading.

Contracting out. Everybody seems to have startled the Provincial Secretary and provoked him into rising....

MR. KEMPF: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have read this bill on numerous occasions. Although I would like to see a clause in regard to contracting out, there is no such clause in Bill 2.

MR. ROSE: I would like to respond to that. Everything that is permitted is not explicit in any piece of legislation. Some things are implicit. If you cancel certain provisions such as a method of recruitment that is fair, open and honest, if you ignore the idea of merit pay, if you leave open to the government its own method of the delivery of service and if, in its opinion, the delivery of service is more favourably handled, as far as the government is concerned, by an outside contractor, then you can do it.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I don't care what they said. If the Provincial Secretary is willing to bring in an amendment, as he suggested, to make it explicit that nothing in this bill will permit contracting out, then we'll vote for that. Of course he's not going to. If contracting out is not contemplated, why wouldn't the Provincial Secretary be prepared to bring it in? I would think that if he doesn't intend to do it — and doesn't need that kind of freedom — he should have no fear of making it explicit. I wouldn't think that that would trouble him at all.

[10:45]

There's something else. Although it's been repealed, we once had an appeal procedure — I can give you the chapter and verse of it, if you want, outlined in yellow on page 29 — even in terms of recruitment. When we're talking about fairness, we're losing a great deal. Again, the relocation side of it is a very great concern of mine.

What do we mean, anyway, about contracting out? What would be the point of contracting out? Well, I think there are a number of reasons for contracting out. First, because you want to get somebody on the cheap — that's one reason. We saw the bulldozer guys from Hydro demonstrating this afternoon in Langley. They're union members but they are private entrepreneurs. They're worried about Hydro contracting out, about the rate they're getting and how they're forced to compete with one another to the point where they said they're only getting a take-home pay of $4 per hour. They were demonstrating in front of the Ministry of Labour. Why would you want to do that? Why would you want to contract out? One reason is that you might be able to wring people out and have them competing against one another, like we have on the rural mail deliveries. A lot of people compete for the rural mail deliveries....

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise on standing order 43 and bring to your attention that the member is, and has been, embarking on debate that is absolutely irrelevant to this bill with regard to contracting out. There is absolutely no mention whatsoever in this bill of contracting out.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member for Omineca persists in making this point, but the Chair has already ruled on this. I would think that would be satisfactory.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair did make a ruling earlier this evening that allows certain leeway in second reading of this bill. I would ask the member for Coquitlam-Moody to continue.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that no explicit mention of contracting out in the bill does not mean it's not implicit. If you remove all the provisions against contracting out, then it would be allowed. If you take out all the negatives, you end up with a positive. I think anybody can understand that. Why would we be interested in that at all? The first reason is that you might be able to get it on the cheap. The second is that perhaps you could have fewer people on the public payroll. You'd be spending the same money, but maybe you would have a smaller number of people on the payroll doing the same work, or even more. Or even less work, if you look at the Michigan study. But it's hidden, because you don't have the number of civil servants. Then you can farm that stuff out to anybody you wish. You don't even have to have competitive bidding for any of these things. That isn't in there either. I can get to the point of what is in there at any time, and would be delighted to.

Now the third point. The first is on the cheap, the second is cutting down on the number of employees. We had the same thing with a sternwheeler in the Fraser River. They retired the sternwheeler, which had five people working on it. They put it up on a berth in New Westminster and contracted out the work it had done. If you do that everywhere, you still do the same amount of work, it still costs the public the same money, but you have fewer people on the payroll. It's a matter of philosophy. I'm saying that this is a possibility. The third reason is that if you don't have as many people on the public payroll, then you don't have as many potential union members; therefore you don't have the strength. The union doesn't have the power and you can break the union. You've eliminated most of their functions now. By enough contracting out you don't have public employees at all. They're not covered. They don't need to be paid fringes. They don't have any pensions. You can get away with all kinds of stuff that you couldn't get away with if you had organized workers in the public service.

Incidentally, if you don't have a decent payroll, all the small....

AN HON. MEMBER: It costs the taxpayer less.

MR. ROSE: That hasn't been proven to anybody.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Sometimes you can get a few people to work on the cheap, but it doesn't mean you're going to save any

[ Page 2477 ]

money in total. It might, but at the same time you do need a professional workforce that has stability.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: On what? You don't want a public service. You want to contract everything out. You don't want any unions either. You don't want anybody who is organized to fight for their own rights. That's what you want to get rid of. Who is going to shop at your store if you don't have a payroll in the community? Take all the postal worker jobs and school teacher jobs out of the community. Ask the merchants in your community if they want the school teachers, postal workers, policemen or social workers to shop at their stores. You've got to have an efficient, productive workforce.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Why don't you open up your own courier service like Pink Lady and get rid of the post office? That's something else you'd like to do.

MR. REID: That might not be a bad idea. It works perfectly in the States, and you get your mail the next day.

MR. ROSE: They'll do exactly what the cable companies do. What's going to happen if you privatize these things is the same thing that happened to the cable companies, Mr. Speaker. They skim. The lucrative markets.... The electrical companies did the same thing; that's why W.A.C. Bennett, to his credit, took over and made sure that Golden had lights. Let there be light in Golden, and look what came out of it — the flashing light. The point is that the courier services will skim. They'll use the lucrative markets and let the public sector pick up the poor ones. That's what the electrical and telephone companies have done, and that's what the cable companies are doing.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We're not talking about that, for crying out loud.

MR. ROSE: Oh, I'm getting close. After all, you're the Minister of Tourism, you've done a few verbal tours in your life. I'm on an excursion here, and being provoked by some of the people over there.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This member makes an absolute mockery of this House and I take exception to that. Either that member speaks to this bill and is relevant, or I would ask that you take action against him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member for Coquitlam-Moody to try to stick to the bill. I would also suggest to the other hon. members that the member is being interfered with when he is speaking and is answering some of those interjections. If he was left in silence, he might be able to complete the last seven or eight minutes of his speech on the bill.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, this bill eliminates the power of a union to bargain on any issues other than wages and placements. If you have a piece of legislation that precludes a group of employees from bargaining for things other than wages and placements within the classification system, then what areas are left for bargaining? The wages part of it is going to be handled by the compensation commissioner. Let's pretend that we go through with this charade in which the union — whatever component — bargains. The union bargains for a particular kind of remuneration. That remuneration is not acceptable to the compensation commissioner and the compensation commissioner then rolls it back. So what's the point of bargaining for wages? Bargaining has gone out the window. All kinds of things that used to be bargainable are not bargainable any more.

Can they bargain for working conditions? Can they bargain for merit appointments? That's gone. Can they bargain for appealing an appointment due to a certain kind of recruitment practice? Gone again! Will these jobs be posted, as they were under the master agreement? Gone again! So when people say that collective bargaining in the public service has not only been threatened, it has been destroyed, I don't think they're using excessive language. I don't think they're using pejorative, inflammatory, extravagant language. I think they're stating the truth as they see it. This has taken out all those rights which were in previous agreements and replaced them with bargaining for wages and placement. Then when you look at the compensation commission as far as wages are concerned, they're stymied there as well. Some people say maybe they should be. Maybe we should have a situation like they have in New Zealand where they have the Higher Salaries Commission that looks after all these matters. But this is not New Zealand, and this isn't the way we have operated traditionally. All of a sudden, after years and years of developing very sophisticated, responsible and complex systems of negotiation, we get a bill that ends it. So we shouldn't wonder why people do not find that acceptable.

It says here: "The current act states that the collective agreement cannot deal with the organization, establishment and administration of ministries and branches of government, except the effect of reductions in establishment of employees, which will be negotiated by the parties." That used to be in there. Now we don't even bargain against reductions. So again, what's left?

Then we get down to that very interesting piece about the collective agreement and consultation; that's gone. Methods of delivery; that's gone. And you wonder why we bother to talk about contracting out. Everybody gets exercised about contracting out. Job evaluation and a number of other things used to be on the basis of consultation. Consultation is gone.

In closing I think the government should be a model employer. I don't think it should be lavish. I don't think it should be pushed around by greedy people, either in the private or the public sector. But I don't think you create any kind of decent commitment among the public service if you threaten them and make them insecure.

I will close with one of the best examples in the industrial world. What does a worker face in Japan, a country that has out-hustled every other country since the end of World War II? A Japanese worker gets loans to buy a house; he gets profit-sharing once every six months from his firm; he gets bonuses every six months if productivity warrants it. A Japanese worker gets vacation homes and paid vacations at company resorts. A Japanese worker gets a job for life. They don't do the sort of thing....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Two bucks an hour.

[ Page 2478 ]

MR. ROSE: I hope to close on a higher note, rather than arguing with the minister about something he knows nothing about. I can show you the increase in the wages of a Japanese worker as compared to a Canadian worker, and their total wage over the last five years. The Japanese worker doesn't work for two bucks an hour in the auto plants any more. Go and find out what he makes. If you don't have the figures, I'll give them to you.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I know all about how you learned everything about Japanese workers and organization and all the rest of it. I don't need that reminder from you.

Mr. Speaker, I want to end this on a higher note than that. I want to end with a plea that we don't just push ahead with this and push ourselves into social chaos. I think that's going to be the end result. I hope not. It would take a lot of provocation, as I said at the beginning of my speech, for public servants to act in a decidedly unsocietal manner. But if you push any group — if there are any of them left — far enough, long enough and hard enough, they arc going to retaliate. You can't comer decent people and make them like it.

[11:00]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, a wise man once said that a man who desires to be something separate from himself — a member of parliament, for instance; a successful grocer, lawyer, judge or something equally tedious — invariably succeeds in what he wants to be. That is his punishment. Those who want a mask have to wear it. Oscar Wilde said that. I think that some of us in this House, as we set about changing the direction — which certainly has been hard won — in the province over the last half a century, or even since the turn of the century, should not lose sight of the fact that yes, we aspire to be something, and if you try, it really isn't all that hard to get to this House. None of us is that much apart from the people we would seek to govern, and we should not forget from where we came. I would wonder at the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) bringing in this legislation. I wonder if he has given up all rights of employment with his former employer. I wonder if he has waived the rights to the pension plan which he might enjoy.

I wonder if other members of this House would perhaps forget from where we have come. Certainly I don't. My colleague said that in his family his father worked in the private sector and he and his brother worked in the public sector. My grandfather came here from Italy. I guess he worked his way over in the private sector, because he was a sailor, but he then worked in the public sector. He worked for the city of Vancouver as a blasting expert — a public sector worker, I guess. I never thought of him as being different or distinct from anyone else.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) might need a lesson in biology. Children are not brought by the stork. It does take a man and a woman in order to have children. One can be fathered by a Scotsman and mothered by an Italian and it still works. The same biological process works.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You wouldn't say that if Agnes Kripps were here.

MR. NICOLSON: I might bolt out the door if Agnes Kripps were here. The public servant, the public employee, the public sector worker, whatever name we might use to describe the group of people that arc brought under this particular act.... First, there has been an assault on the public sector per se. It seems we can get a very strong response from many people on the other side — a very automatic, almost Pavlovian response — by just mentioning the very words. There seems to be a whole bunch of new truths that are growing out.

In the United States in the 1970s a trend started toward negative bargaining. For many, many years workers fought for and acquired, very slowly, new rights. Certain things such as pay for overtime and the 40-hour week came to be seen as rights and they were enshrined not just in collective agreements but also in minimum employment standards in British Columbia, as well as in other parts of Canada and North America, and in countries around the world. Some of these basic standards of employment don't vary all that greatly in most of the industrialized cities and countries of the world. However, there has been a trend in the last decade toward negative bargaining; that is, the taking away of clauses in collective agreements.

Here is a copy of the master agreement between the government of the province of British Columbia and the B.C. Government Employees' Union. It's not a huge agreement compared with some other master agreements that I've seen. Last year in collective bargaining the Government Employee Relations Bureau tabled 98 demands seeking to take away most of the valued clauses in this agreement. Nobody would argue that a clause, once put into an agreement, might not be removed, and that everything is negotiable when a collective agreement is opened. But that was a rather unusual departure, and is one that came into the collective bargaining climate in British Columbia last year. As a result of that climate....

The relations bureau didn't table a single wage or benefit offer of any kind; they simply put forward this bargaining position of gutting the collective agreement. We all saw the newspaper headlines: the various actions that were taken, the postures, the brinkmanship that was practised, I suppose on both sides. Various liquor stores were shut down on a rotating basis around the province. I think the ferries were off for one day. We were brought very close to a dangerous situation, which in my mind was certainly prompted by the spirit in which the government entered collective bargaining.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Oh, yes, it's always government. They go on strike and it's the government's fault.

MR. NICOLSON: At that time some common sense prevailed. These demands were then dropped in return for the union's agreement to participate in joint productivity committees, which were seen as a way of working toward increased productivity in the publi service. I'talked to a participant at one of the levels of one of the subcommittees. If my recollection is right, I believe Norman Spector was acting on behalf of the government, or at least articulated some of the government's intentions and expectations from those joint productivity committee sessions. That employee, who I suppose would be characterized as a pretty hard-line union activist, came away quite favourably impressed by the way it

[ Page 2479 ]

appeared the joint productivity committees were going to function. This was not a naive employee. This was a fairly experienced and tough-minded person, and that person was impressed and felt there was some confidence building toward this process.

I believe that there was an admission, certainly by government employees, that there was room for improvement and employees can make positive suggestions. I worked for three years solid and then had a total association of some nine years with the Continental Can Company of Canada, a subsidiary of the Continental Can Co. of New York. I worked at the plant level and participated in a worker-management committee. The employees were just as interested as the management in seeing, for instance, that we recruited the best personnel, because when you have to work alongside of someone, you don't want to have to be doing their work for them. We sat down together and discussed ways and means by which we could actually recruit — both the union and the management — the best types of employees. We talked about a whole range of other things. It wasn't just grievances; it was areas where we felt that we had mutual room for cooperation.

That company also listened to its employees and had a very significant program whereby positive suggestions that were made that resulted in increased productivity were rewarded. In our plant several people received more than $1,000 in terms of the kinds of contributions they had made. So they were being listened to. I must say that we had one of the most efficient plants in North America, partly because we had a lot of new equipment, and also partly because of the labour-management attitude. That was a plant that was under an agreement with the United Steelworkers of America. To this day a very good cooperative attitude exists at that plant. Maybe it's for that reason that that plant continues to be located in Burnaby. While some of the economic circumstances of today are not as advantageous as they were at the time the plant was constructed, it does continue to function there.

This bill, instead of listening to and continuing the work of the joint productivity committees, seeks to accomplish through legislation that which the government failed to do, and then reconsidered and found an alternative method of doing, if the government's intention was truly to increase productivity. That sentence is so long that I'll have to break it down so that I can even understand it myself. What I am saying is that the government last year was saying that we had to increase productivity in the public sector. The government's first attempt was to wipe out 98 clauses in the master agreement. The government then said: "Well, yes, we agree. There is another way we can tackle productivity. We can do it through the joint productivity committees." Now the government seems to have abandoned those joint productivity committees, I haven't heard any explanation as to why they have been perceived to have failed, from the government's point of view. I have not been informed that they actually were failing from a union point of view.

So what we see now is the government supposedly trying to achieve some increased productivity by going back to their original plan, only this time instead of doing it through collective bargaining, they are doing it simply by using the force of government.

[11:15]

Mr. Speaker, the government has a majority. They had something like about 49.9 percent of the popular vote, according to the final returns of the chief electoral officer, and we had something like — I don't know — 44 point something percent. The point is that an edge of that amount, whether it be of 10 percent, 12 percent or 15 percent — which it isn't; it is an edge of 5 percent that this government actually holds — does not give the government the right to turn back the clock, not a couple years but in many respects 30, 40 or 50 years. This bill does not affect all of the 240,000 public employees in the province.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's interesting how quickly a member can become somewhat arrogant. But then, of course, this member who interjects does have a head start. He is, after all, a snollygoster, and one would know....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: That's s-n-o-1-1-y-g-o-s-t-e-r, if you wish to look it up in a dictionary.

MR. MICHAEL: I represent that remark.

MR. NICOLSON: You resemble that remark, my friend.

Mr. Speaker, the situation that we see here, then, is that the government really could not have been interested in increasing productivity. The government really has as its schedule the creation of some kind of enemy for the people — a place to displace the failure of their economic policies. It's a very tried and true method of politics — not one that I believe in myself. This government is saying that rather than try to create a province in which we're all working together, in order to maintain political power we must constantly be looking for some group for give people to hate. In the 1920s and 1930s, the government of the day — they even advertised in the paper — gave the people the Japanese as the people to hate. They ran ads and used the words "yellow peril." They said a vote for the CCF.... "They'll give the vote to the Orientals. They'll remove the Oriental exclusion laws." It got the government of that day elected.

We've come a long way, Mr. Speaker. Now when we scapegoat we are a little bit less racially discriminatory, but it's discriminating nonetheless. We're singling out a single group of people, and that has to be the principle of this bill. This is the thrust of this bill. Has the government not assigned Martin Goldfarb and his polling institute to ask questions about collective bargaining with the public service? Yes. Of course they have. You've paid for that with government funds.

MR. MICHAEL: How's Kube doing today? He's up there looking at you right now.

MR. NICOLSON: He is?

MR. MICHAEL: He's got his representative up there looking at you anyway, He's been sitting there all night looking at you. He's watching you.

MR. NICOLSON: That's good. I'm glad he's up there, if he's up there.

[ Page 2480 ]

MR. MICHAEL: Make sure you vote right and say the right things. He'll be cutting off the old financial support.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, more and more I am convinced that that member's a snollygoster. He's certainly convincing me.

But, Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation has to have been brought in not to achieve the stated aim of the government of increased productivity in the public service, but to have been brought in in response to scapegoating a group in order to give the public something to blame other than the government itself for the massive unemployment in the province and for the dismal prospects for young people, who are the most seriously affected. To a large extent, it's working. You may wish to continue this. They may wish to support this bill — some of the members — but they should be very clear in their minds as to what their expectations should be from this bill.

I can't say that I'm against every aspect of this bill. I suppose that I support section 1, which creates the new subsection 13(l)(b). I support that because it's exactly the same as it was in the old statute. All matters included under the Pension (Public Service) Act are excluded as matters that can be negotiated. Well, I don't know if I support it, but at least I'm not going to criticize it too much, because that's absolutely the same. But the other terms and conditions that are in here: hours of work, transfers, postings, the business of not giving any sort of preference to in-service appointments.... All other things being equal, who should get a job — somebody who's been with the public service for some time, or somebody who just comes in off the street? All other things being equal, I think it's always been accepted as a tenet of fair play and responsible collective bargaining that you should take people from within and do promotions on that basis — that they have demonstrated some loyalty.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You want seniority regardless.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm not saying that. I'm saying, all other things being equal, the person has to be competent to do the job.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You're saying no layoffs irregardless.

MR. NICOLSON: No layoffs irregardless? Mr. School Superintendent, I am not saying that. I wouldn't even know how to spell a word that doesn't exist. It would be a great problem for Hansard if I were to use the word "irregardless." Would you spell it g-u-a-r-d or g-a-r-d? A word that doesn't exist would be most difficult to use.

AN HON. MEMBER: It does exist.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, if you want to go to these upstart new dictionaries like Webster's dictionary, yes, I suppose.

This piece of legislation then seeks to create some real problems, when really I don't know that it has been demonstrated that the problems really exist. This is an antagonistic piece of legislation that is meant to create a strong response, and I suppose it has succeeded in doing that. It is really irresponsible of government to bring in this piece of legislation particularly considering the history that I outlined: that they tried to do this one way, then pulled back; then they offered a compromise position; now they've reneged on the compromise position without any explanation.

Government can improve productivity. One government activity that has been increasing tremendously in the last couple of years, I think partly as a result of other government programs, is that of sheriffs escorting prisoners back and forth: taking them to the courts for their appearances, then escorting them back to the remand centres in the lower mainland. Instead of hiring enough sheriffs, there has been a freeze, and because of that freeze the government had to pay out huge amounts in overtime or allow employees to accumulate huge amounts of time off in lieu of overtime. If this government was managing properly it wouldn't have to worry about the overtime provisions and the provisions for time off in lieu of over-time that are in the collective agreement. If the government would simply hire sheriffs when they are needed and have them work at straight time, if they had enough of them so they could work at straight time.... And there are seasons. Everything has a season and so does crime. So do appearances before the courts. There are also provisions that when there isn't work you can lay them off. The provisions in this piece of legislation do not.... These are not the bottom-line provisions that are in the private sector. If the government wants to change things, then why don't you put the B.C. government employees under the regular code, the regular labour relations act? Then they would have the right to bargain as people do in the private sector.

If you would apply to them the same principles that apply to the private sector where collective bargaining is in effect, then we wouldn't see these kinds of exclusions — the rights of even posting a job, of having a job posted internally. The sections that are being tampered with by this particular piece of legislation........ The right to designate a union observer to sit on a selection panel for positions in the public service bargaining unit: this is one of the things that has been provided under the old section 13, which will be cancelled by the last part of this particular piece of legislation.

[11:30]

I think it can be very reassuring, not just to government but to the people of the province, to know there are two parties on that selection panel besides government having a member of the union there. This is where the patronage comes in. My colleague was talking about what was going on in the 1930s; it's my understanding that that went on until 1952. That went on until W.A.C. Bennett brought in a Public Service Commission. Again, it was played by the old Liberals and Conservatives. If you worked with the Ministry of Highways, it was a fact that when the government changed from Liberal to Conservative or Conservative to Liberal, people went down the road. That was changed and there was a move made towards having a public service commission. Even with the Public Service Commission, certainly when I was a member of government.... I could point to one of your very highly positioned public service employees right now, one in whom this government places a great deal of trust. It certainly wasn't impossible to get the employee that you selected, even using the provisions that were in this collective agreement, provided the person had merit. But now when you take away some of these provisions, you really do open up the door to patronage in this province. We see the appointment of Mr. Tozer, for instance, and it really puts a chill in the hearts of many people in British Columbia, who pointed with pride....

[ Page 2481 ]

For the last couple of weeks I've had guests in this province. It's taken me 27 years to get them to visit us from Mexico. One of the things I've always talked about with pride is the lack of patronage, the difference between our political system and what is accepted as a sort of Latin or Latin-American model of patronage in government. The contrast is very great, and is something of which British Columbians and Canadians I believe can be proud. But with these changes to section 13 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, all of this is going to go by the boards.

Under the collective agreement made possible by the former section 13, there was an appeal procedure for unsuccessful candidates to request an oral explanation by telephone from the panel chairperson of the reasons why he or she was unsuccessful; if the candidates wished reasons in writing, they would have to request them in writing. Then there was a further appeal process, with certain steps laid out. That has been taken away, and that takes away the perceived fairness. I'm sure some of the members of the government feel that's just too cumbersome, that it's not efficient. But government is an area in which.... This is the first time in quite a few years that I've used this phrase in the House. Scott Wallace used to use it three or four times a day: justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done.

It would also be doing away with the screening committee and with something that was won.... I'm sure members opposite will all take exception and say: "That's good; that should be done away with." It would do away with interview expenses for in-service applicants.

"An in-service applicant for a posted position who is not on leave of absence without pay and has been called for a panel interview shall be granted leave of absence with basic pay, and shall have his or her authorized expenses paid. An employee granted leave under this clause shall notify his or her supervisor as soon as he or she is notified of his or her requirement to appear for an interview."

This is a clause which was written into an agreement and it is part of bargaining. If that was written into the agreement, then certainly the bargainers on the other side must have given something up. In other words, they might have been holding tough on a certain percentage in the compensation package, and when the Government Employee Relations Bureau — or whenever this clause came in — yielded this particular clause, there must have been some give and take. Now it is going to be unilaterally taken away by a piece of legislation. It might have been linked to the compensation package originally, but now this is being taken away.

Vacancies of a regular nature that are to be filled for positions in the bargaining unit were to be posted within 30 days, as part of this collective agreement. Those postings can now be put up at any time, or not put up at all, because this particular clause could be removed through the collective agreement and the piece of legislation. Rights to layoff and recall can also be taken out of the collective agreement. For instance, "regular employees on layoff presently shall be called back in order of service seniority," but with this piece of legislation, this section 13, that need no longer apply.

There are a lot of regulations in the collective agreement about hours of work. Some of them apply to fire-fighting staff; some of them apply in various component agreements. Different work schedules are set up in various component agreements. There is flexibility there and there are ways in which these things can be varied. But the new section 13 is going to set that aside. It would appear to me that through this legislation the conversion of hours, whereby a person who works overtime is given hours off, would be set aside. Where an employee is granted time off in lieu of overtime having been worked, he would be granted seven hours per lieu day for a full-time employee, pro-rated for a part-time employee. That is set down in the collective agreement, but again that is going to be set aside. Things about rest periods, meal periods, vacation scheduling and a whole host of other things can be set aside.

The job evaluation plan. Government, under this particular clause, is now going to do job evaluation. I don't suppose there could be a more contentious area in which the government just takes unto itself to describe what a job shall be, how many people shall be required to perform a certain job, and all of these things. If that isn't done in consultation, then that job is not going to be done well or correctly, because it isn't a one-way thing. As I said at the outset of my speech, I certainly learned, when I worked for Continental Can Company, that we could do a lot better job by both management and labour listening to each other. This is going to be onesided. The government is turning back the clock on joint management and labour committees, such as the committee for productivity that was set up.

This is bad legislation. It is going to be costly in the long run, and it is divisive at a time when we need to pull together like we've never needed to pull together before in my lifetime. I was born in 1936, and what I remember of that Depression, what I was told about it, doesn't scare me as much as the situation we're facing today. This is a time when we need to pull together, and that is the major reason I cannot support this legislation.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to express my appreciation to the Speaker for expediting the Blues. It does help to have some notes as to what the minister had to say when he read from his script, which he preferred not to make available to us.

I'd like to read a few of the minister's remarks just as an opening to my own presentation this evening:

"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."

Government employees have not always had collective bargaining in the province of British Columbia. I can recall that the first time I ran for election — 34 years ago now, in 1949 — one of the first persons who interviewed me was what we called in those days an inspector of schools; now we call them superintendents. He called me into his office to discuss the CCF program, and his particular concern was how I stood on the question of bargaining rights for civil servants. Even that long ago they were getting quite worked up, quite organized, very anxious that civil servants should have collective bargaining rights; that we should get away from the master-slave relationship and should sit down and discuss,

[ Page 2482 ]

with representatives of the civil servants, the working conditions, earnings and all kinds of other factors that enter into collective agreements.

That was in 1949. In 1951 the government — I can't recall whether it was the coalition government or the Liberal government that briefly succeeded the coalition before the election was called in 1952 — set up a royal commission to look into this question, to look into the working conditions of the civil servants, and in particular to make a recommendation to the government as to whether or not it was reasonable to enter into collective bargaining negotiations with civil servants, to give civil servants bargaining rights. The Carrothers report was delivered to the government after the change of administration and after W.A.C. Bennett became Premier of the province, some time in 1952. Year after year CCF spokesmen in the House — and after 1961, NDP spokesmen — asked the government of the day whether or not they were prepared to table the Carrothers report. It was generally suspected that the Carrothers report did recommend that bargaining rights be granted to government employees, and it was generally suspected that the reason the government was so anxious to hide that report was that they were not prepared to act on the recommendations of that report.

[11:45]

Finally that report did see the light of day. In 1972, some 20 years after it was delivered to the government, a new administration came into office: the NDP administration led by Dave Barrett. That administration started looking for the Carrothers report. It turned up, interestingly enough, in the garage of the outgoing Provincial Secretary. It was removed from the government buildings altogether, but at least it turned up. At least we did find out, some 20 years after the report was delivered to government, that the Carruthers report recommended bargaining rights for civil servants. That started it. It took a little while to achieve it but we did get legislation about one year later, in the second session of 1973.

Today in his remarks the minister said there wasn't that much changed between the legislation that was introduced then and the legislation that is introduced now. What he did say was that it would be incorrect to categorize the amendment as a departure from the concept under which collective bargaining was introduced into the public service. Well, it depends upon how widely one wants to interpret the word "concept." If I may read from the first two lines of section 13 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, 1973: "Every collective agreement shall include all matters affecting wages or salary, hours of work and other working conditions, except" — the important part being to include everything except five exceptions, and it lists those exceptions. Everything else is to be included in the collective agreement to be reached between the representatives of the employees and the representatives of the employer.

The legislation was changed in 1976 by the incoming administration, but only to change a reference to section 34 to read section 20. That was in the Public Service Act. In effect, no change at all; simply to accommodate something that had been done elsewhere. The legislation was changed again in 1977 by the present administration, and again a very modest change that had no impact on the legislation. All it did was substitute the word "ministry" for "department" where that was appropriate. Then no changes until 1980, when there was again modest rewording. The Public Service Pension Act, for example, was changed to the Pension (Public Service) Act, or the other way around. No changes. The government of the day did not find it necessary to make any changes of any consequence in this legislation over a 10-year period. Then on July 7, 1983, after 10 years of experience with the legislation and after 10 years of boasting about how well bargaining was going between government employees and the employer under the new Social Credit administration, how well everything was going in the province totally, after 10 years of boasting about that the government has decided to make substantive changes in the legislation for the first time.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Nothing is carved in stone.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, that member will have to speak a little louder if I'm going to hear her. She might even wish to rise to her feet and speak. I think a lot of them wish to but they have been instructed not to.

MRS. JOHNSTON: No, we have not.

MR. STUPICH: To the best of my knowledge, the only participation that the first member for Surrey has had in the debates in the last three months was to read a short prepared script one evening and impose closure on a particular bill. I want to get on to the legislation that we're discussing right now — the second reading of Bill 2. As I pointed out, the original wording said: "...every collective agreement shall include all matters affecting wages, salary, hours of work and other working conditions, except" — and it lists the exceptions; whereas the new bill is quite different. It starts out: "No collective agreement shall affect," and then it goes on to say the things that will not be affected. It leaves out the things that will be affected — leaves out everything. It says what shall not be affected, and then down at the bottom, almost as an afterthought, it says: "Nothing in subsection l d) affects the right of a union to negotiate (i) levels of compensation." What's the point in putting that reference in this bill when other legislation before the House does affect that? It very much affects the right of a union to negotiate. Indeed....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Another prepared script.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, the prepared script I'm referring to is Bill 11 on the order paper. It's a very brief reference. It says: "No implementation of plan..."

"25.1. Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, the guidelines or the compensation regulations, a public sector employer shall not implement a compensation plan until the commissioner has completed his review of it and has determined that the plan is within the guidelines or, where the plan is subject to Part 3, has determined that the plan is within the compensation regulations."

That's the prepared script that the member is referring to, Mr. Speaker. What is the point in saying that public service employees can still bargain wages when other legislation is taking away from public sector employees any rights that they have to bargain wages at all? Under the new legislation, and when you consider it as a part of the 26 pieces of legislation and the budget that were introduced on July 7, what we're saying in effect is that no agreement reached between the government and its employers shall affect all of the items listed in 13(l) — there are five of them — and in effect

[ Page 2483 ]

neither shall they have the right to negotiate wages or working conditions.

Mr. Speaker, if the legislation before us now — Bill 2 and the other bills pass in their present wording, there will be no more effective, meaningful bargaining of any kind between the government and its employers. We'll be back where we were when the Carrothers report was first appointed in I believe it was 1951. In his remarks, the minister said: "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." It's very easy to say something like that without producing any evidence. The minister has said he will give it. He had an opportunity to give it in second reading; he'll have another opportunity when he closes second reading. He may even have further opportunities in committee stage and he may well have further opportunities when and if we get to his estimates.

In the meantime, there were no wage increases granted of any consequence the last time there were negotiations. There was no gain a year ago when they negotiated. The employees negotiated in good faith with the government. They did walk away with Billy Bonds, but apart from that there were no increases. In the three years prior to that, public sector employees — and the statistics are all there to back this up, if the minister would care to bring them all in — gradually fell behind the average improvement that was gained by other workers in collective bargaining agreements by some 30 percent. They did gain in a three-year period when the NDP were in office; they held their own for a five-year period after that and then they started falling behind. In the last four years they have fallen further and further behind every one else negotiating collective bargaining agreements in the matter of wages and working conditions. The statistics — if the minister does bring in complete ones — will show that. There's no question about it. I know there is that fiction out there that they have done very well, but the facts prove the contrary: that in the last four years the public servants have been running further and further behind.

The minister went on to say: "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 in an effective method by which employees and the government communicate in order to reach agreement on fundamental employment conditions." Even if there were any bargaining parameters still available — I submit there are not, and I've made that case already — there's really no point in bargaining any more with the government, because there's nothing left to bargain on. Even if there were, why would they bargain with this administration, the same administration that sat down and reached agreement with them one year ago only to see the government renege on that agreement — backing away from it, bringing in legislation cancelling some of the terms, and bringing in legislation to say that even if they did agree to any of the terms in a collective bargaining agreement, it means nothing?

Going on with the minister's remarks: "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. As I pointed out, Bill 11 says that they can't negotiate wage rates. They can negotiate; they can even reach agreement, but then the commissioner may step in and say that it means nothing at all. He may even impose a 5 percent reduction.

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. Well, that was all possible right up until the summer of 1983 because the way the legislation read then, there were exclusions from what could be bargained but everything could be bargained. Now there are exclusions and little is left to be bargained. The minister says they can still talk about all of these things. Yes, indeed, they may talk about them, but there's absolutely no point in carrying on the discussion. Reading again from the Blues: "The agreements will continue to be the place where the most important issues related to wages, benefits and average working hours are laid down." The minister has conveyed the impression over and over that the public sector employees have some special provisions that are not available to workers in the private sector. No one yet has compared any other agreements available in the private sector with the agreements available in the public sector.

Let's take a look at seniority. The master agreement between the government and the B.C. Government Employees' Union refers to seniority in section 31.02: "Seniority on applying for regular positions and relocation expenses." It goes on to talk about seniority; 31.03 is a description of seniority generally, 31.04 loss of seniority, 31.05 layoff and recall — all of it to do with seniority.

[12:00]

Let's take a look at the master agreement for the forest products industries, coast region of British Columbia. It's dated 1981. Page 9 of this master agreement says:

"Seniority application. (a) Where the union holds a certificate of bargaining authority covering a large area in which the company has two or more distinct logging operations and distance makes the application of seniority impractical, it is agreed that the following principles shall apply: (i) there shall be a separate seniority for each operation; (ii) in the event of a closure or layoff of any of the camps concerned, other than normal seasonal shutdowns, the company shall give hiring preference to those people laid off in accordance with the provisions of article 21 (1) when they are hiring for another operation included in the same certification.

" (b) Details of application of the said principles shall be worked out between the company and the union."

That's the real point that I want to make, Mr. Speaker. This agreement in the private sector over and over refers to matters that are going to be worked out between the employer and the employee. The changes introduced in Bill 2, the bill that we're discussing now, remove any possibility or opportunity for the employer and the employee to sit down while the agreement is in force and continually talk about how the different sections are going to apply. The minister wants to be able to make the interpretations. The minister wants to be able to make all of the decisions.

There's more about seniority in the IWA contract. Article 21: "The company recognizes the principle of seniority."

[ Page 2484 ]

The minister wants to delete any reference to seniority. He wants to give no recognition at all to seniority. "Competency considered." In this agreement arrived at between the employers and the employees in the forest industry they did recognize that competency had to be considered. At one point the minister said he was trying to achieve that, but he felt the only way he could achieve it would be for him to have the say rather than for the employer and employee representative to sit down and discuss it. He has no trust for the slaves. He feels the master has to impose.

"In the application of seniority it shall be determined first by department and second by planned seniority. The selection and promotion of supervisory officials shall be entirely a matter for the company's decision" — that was agreed to by the employers and employees — "but in making such selection or promotion, length of continuous service shall be given due consideration." That's all. Surely that's something with which the minister could live. Has he no trust at all in his ability, or the ability of his representatives, to bargain with reasonable people representing the government employees? That's all that they're asking — an opportunity to bargain. Section 2, under article 21, again from the IWA agreement: "Reduction and recall of forces. In the event of a reduction of the forces the last person hired shall be the first person released, subject to the competency of the person involved and the provisions of section L" It has been argued in this House that in the private sector there's no guarantee of employment. Well, of course there isn't, and every agreement arrived at in the private sector recognizes that no one is guaranteeing employment, at least not on the North American continent. In a previous debate I read from an American publication to indicate that the North American continent is almost unique in that respect. In most other jurisdictions they have gone beyond us in the matter of providing some protection of employment. But here there is no guarantee of employment. That's the situation. The IWA recognized and agreed to that, but simply wanted the employer to consult with the employees when there were going to be layoffs. Reading from the agreement:

"Where reduction of forces is caused by emergency conditions" — that's reasonable and they accept that — "the application of plant seniority may be postponed for such period as may be necessary,

"(ii) When recalling forces after a period of layoff following a reduction of forces, an employee shall be recalled in order of his planned seniority, subject to the competency of the person involved and the provisions of section (i)."

It's all there, Mr. Speaker. It's an agreement that was negotiated between the employers, on one hand, and the employees on the other hand. Surely, in this day and age, we don't have to go back to a period prior to 1973 or to a time when the employee pressure obliged the government to appoint a commission to look into the possibility of bargaining rights for civil servants.

Reading further from the minister's remarks:

"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." We can all agree with that. "There have been some good times between 1973 and 1983, and under this administration we can all agree that there has been inefficiency and waste."

No question about that in the last ten years. Even more so in the last four years when times weren't so good. You'll recall that the government went $331 million in the hole four years ago, Mr. Speaker, $625 million in the hole three years ago, almost $1 billion in the hole last year, and now proposes to go $1.6 billion into a deficit position. So it's taken them four years to pile up debts of some $4 billion, not counting the Crown corporations, at least to use up cash surpluses that were available and to pile up debts. Total debts in all areas — Crown corporations and everything else — have increased by some $10 billion under this administration. So they can do it all right. They've proven that they are wasteful and that they can be inefficient. But why take it out on the government employees? It's the administration that is at fault, not the government employees.

Reading further from the minister's remarks:

"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," Well, we've conceded that. It doesn't. Bill 11 takes away that right completely, so there's no need to do it here. "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."

That may well be, Mr. Speaker, but why not sit down with representatives of the employees' organization, as is done in the private sector, and talk about things like that? It's certainly allowed for in the IWA agreement. There's an article 6, headed "Technological Change."

"Section 1: Joint Committee. It is agreed that a joint committee will be established to consider technological changes in progress and make recommendations to the parties to assist them in ameliorating the effect of such changes."

That's a good provision. The IWA bargaining committee recognized that there would be technological changes, but wanted to provide for them and wanted to provide for opportunities to sit down with the employers and arrive at recommendations to assist them in ameliorating the effect of such changes.

"The committee will meet with the provincial and federal representatives concerned with retraining of manpower." Isn't that the humane thing to do? Why does the minister want to be able to do away with that? Why does he not want to provide for that in the legislation before us now? The minister is shaking his head. I must remind him of what he said: "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." There's no provision there at all for any consultation with the employees. Management, as represented by the minister, wants to make those decisions. He may be shaking his head, but perhaps it's just that he's trying to keep himself awake, or trying not to listen so that he will be able to go on with his catnap.

Going on with the minister's remarks: "It is intended to clarify the fact that the appointment procedure is driven by the principle of merit and stands outside the bargaining process." Until now we thought that's how people were appointed. Until recently we understood that people were appointed in the public service according to merit. For the first time in the last 30 years a government agent was appointed

[ Page 2485 ]

not on the basis of merit, but simply because he had a good relation.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know that.

MR. STUPICH: It's said he has no seniority. No evidence has been presented that he knew anything at all about the job. The only evidence we have is that he knew the Premier well, being a shirt-tail relation. He knew nothing at all about the work; he had no opportunity to work his way up and learn something about it; he did not fill the qualifications.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Do you want me to read the Public Service Act to you? Surely you have people in your office who can read things to you if you find it difficult to read yourself. I don't think I have time now in the 40 minutes to read the Public Service Act.

Until now there has been no concern about employees appointed other than by the principle of merit. "In section 13(l)(c)" — I'm quoting from the minister's remarks — "we're dealing with the heart of management itself. The three key words of the section remain as before." Organization, establishment and administration are three key words. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, those words are still there, But then they go on to define exactly what is meant by administration, and that's where the change takes place. It does nothing to allay any concerns to say we're still using the same three words in the first line, only to go on and admit that in defining administration we have an entirely different concept of what that word means.

The minister said in his address: "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.'" What does he mean by "not...traditionally matters of management within the meaning of the term administration?" Certainly these things are bargainable in most other situations. Certainly there are references to that in the IWA master agreement. They are traditional. They may not be what the minister wants, but that doesn't say that they're not traditional; indeed they are.

[Mr. Campbell in the chair.]

"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.'" Let's take a look at the IWA agreement, but first I'll go further with the minister's remarks: "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?'" As I've said, the IWA agreement provides for that. Under the article "Technological Change," it provides for a joint committee. It provides for advance notification: "The company shall notify the shop committee and the union not less than six (6) months in advance of intent to institute changes in working methods or facilities which would involve the discharge or laying off of employees." Beyond that is section 3 on retraining: "The company shall cooperate with the government of British Columbia and participate in every way possible in training or retraining of employees so affected."

Reading further in the minister's remarks: "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." The minister can't seem to get it out of his head that we should not be in a master-slave relationship in 1983. The master agreement between the IWA and the forest industry provided for that very factor, and an agreement between the BCGEU and the government could also provide.

[12:15]

Under article 6(4) it says:

"Rate Adjustment. An employee who is set back to a lower-paid job because of mechanization, technological change or automation will receive the rate of his regular job at the time of the setback for a period of three (3) months" — just three months, Mr. Speaker; time to allow the employee to adjust — "and for a further period of three (3) months he will be paid an adjusted rate which will be midway between the rate of his regular job at the time of the setback and the rate of his new regular job. At the end of this six-month period the rate of his new regular job will apply."

That's not something that was imposed by the forest industry. The minister feels he has to impose those kinds of regulations and decisions. That wasn't imposed; it was agreed to in a collective bargaining process between the employers and the employees. Why does the minister feel he has to depart from this when he's dealing with government employees?

Going on with the minister's remarks:

"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 year."

It goes on to talk about how many. That's also in the private sector. In the IWA agreement there's provision for that. Regarding job postings, it says, "Vacancies shall be posted in advance for a period of not less than two (2) working days except where otherwise agreed." That's provided for in the agreement between the IWA and the industry. The minister was concerned about hours of work fitting different circumstances. In article 5 of the master agreement between the forest products industries and the IWA, section 1 deals with hours and overtime. It deals with regular hours. In subsection (b) it deals with double straight-time rates, which shall be imposed under certain conditions. Subsection (c) deals with statutory holidays. In subsection (d), "the following are exceptions," and it talks about people who are excepted from these things because of the nature of their work: firefighters, employees on tugboats, watchmen. It also deals in section 2 of article 5 with casual work — all of these things are negotiated: "The term 'casual work' as used in this agreement shall apply only to work performed on Saturday and-or Sunday by either laid-off regular employees or other persons hereinafter referred to as 'casual employees.'" There are several subsections under that.

It recognizes the particular circumstances of certain jobs. In section 3 there's a reference to cookhouse and bunkhouse.

[ Page 2486 ]

Because of the nature of their work they have to work split shifts, and that's provided for in the agreement.

There's nothing that can't be provided for in the agreement if the minister is prepared to abandon his concept that he's dealing with slaves and they have to be treated as such; that everything has to be imposed upon them by the minister, rather than bargained for at a bargaining table. He doesn't believe in collective bargaining. That's obvious. With the legislation now before us he's wiped out any effective or real collective bargaining between the government employees and the employer.

Saturday and Sunday work is provided for. In some parts of the forest industry that's necessary and accepted straight time work. Tuesday to Saturday to suit certain conditions, completion of afternoon shift, three-shift operations, swing shift, rest periods, hot meals, work guarantees.... "A committee shall be established during the term of the 1977-78 master agreement to clarify the provisions of article 5 — hours of work."

The minister and others have said there are no guarantees of employment for employees in the private sector. We recognize that, and every collective bargaining agreement unit recognizes that there is no guarantee of employment. That's recognized and allowed for when reasonable people on both sides are prepared to sit down at a bargaining table and arrive at agreements. That has been the history of the process over the last ten years; they have sat down. Even a year ago the government did sit down with its employees and arrive at an agreement that both could live with. One side did live with it. The government, on the other hand, decided not to live with it, changed it, and is bringing in legislation now to wipe it out completely.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I don't have time now to deal with the minister's denials, because the green light is on. Perhaps the minister will be able to explain later on how he feels they have not broken that agreement.

My time is up, but can I just say that the government employees in the province of British Columbia waited many years for the government to agree to sit down and negotiate reasonable working conditions, reasonable rates of pay and all of the other factors. Even pension rights are provided for, and pension rights are provided for in the IWA agreement. They waited all those years, and finally got a government in office that was prepared to sit down and negotiate with them. After ten years of reasonable progress and negotiation between the government and the employees, after ten years of a plan that has been working, the Social Credit government has suddenly decided that anything that's working that well must be destroyed. The government today, in the legislation before us — until this administration is thrown out of office and a new one elected — is deciding that the collective bargaining process between the government employees and the province of British Columbia is no longer a fact; it is fiction only.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Victoria.

MR. HANSON: Come on, let's hear it for B team.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I see the member for Victoria has a podium in front of him, and a glass of juice, but I don't see his throat spray. I'm wondering whether he is the designated speaker.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill is about vindictiveness, about stripping away bargaining rights from government employees, about moving back to the Dark Ages, the bad old days, the days when this current minister was a Labour minister in this government. This minister, the Provincial Secretary, has been looking at his old photographs from the day he was Labour minister, and in that flood of nostalgia phoned up the most right-wing anti-labour person he could find and said: "Draft me a bill to kill bargaining rights for government employees."

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill Bennett drafted the bill.

MR. HANSON: So Bill Bennett drafted the bill. That's really what it is.

The history of public sector bargaining rights in North America is a very interesting one. It has been moving in a very progressive direction where public sector workers have been assuming equal status with private sector people. Only in this part of North America do we now have a government that wants to roll the clock back in a similar fashion to rolling the clock back in all the other bills in the legislation package that's before this House.

This is a long history even in this province; it goes back to the Carrothers report, the Higgins report and various other kinds of studies, then into collective bargaining legislation in 1973 and a whole agonizing procedure of public sector workers assuming their rightful place as working people in this province. The history is one of public sector workers in all their multitude of vocations. The general public would be surprised to know how many different kinds of occupations are in the public service: there are psychiatric nurses, pilots, truck drivers, foresters, physicians, museum curators, biologists, lab technicians, and so on. There were at one time, I believe, 1,400 different occupational classifications; those aren't all vocations, those are different levels.

The public service in many respects does jobs that the private sector never has wanted to do. They look after the children who are profoundly mentally retarded, profoundly emotionally disturbed, profoundly criminally involved; the areas where the profits have not been for the private sector, and it has been up to the public sector to move in that area. Mr. Speaker, if you've ever been to Woodlands or Glendale or some of these institutions, you'll know that the people who work in those institutions are dedicated, competent, loving people, and all they want from their employer, this government, is to be treated with some respect, fairness and equity. They've never wanted the moon; all they've wanted is to be treated like working people.

The history of the Social Credit Party, with respect to its own employees, has always been one of contempt; one of asking government employees to subsidize the services provided to the public; one of noblesse oblige and patronage; one where the gold watch routine would occur at some point in the year, where the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, would call a retirement meeting to honour those with 35 to 40 years' service, and at that meeting he would make a pronouncement about what the benefits and wages of the public service would be, and he would give those long-service employees a gold watch. That is the way the Social Credit

[ Page 2487 ]

government has always wanted to function with respect to its own employees.

The problem was that when these public sector workers were allowed to get off their knees and were treated with respect by the New Democratic Party government between 1972 and 1975.... When you get a taste of freedom, respect, and feeling that you are a worker — a worker is a worker is a worker — it is very hard to go back to substandard and get back on your knees. That is the problem.

In recent years we have seen negotiations that took place with the B.C. Government Employees' Union and other unions for long contracts — three-year contracts, contracts of 8 percent at a time when inflation rates were soaring and interest rates went up to 22 and 23 percent on house mortgages. Did those employees walk away, try to break the contract, or attempt in any way to disrupt the public service? No, they respected the sanctity of contract, and they lived out their contract and said: "We didn't anticipate these surges in the costs our members would be expected to pay, but we respect the sanctity of contract and we will do our duty and attempt to make that redress at the bargaining table."

[12:30]

What we have instead here is a government that, because they do not accept the fact that government employees are equal to any other employees, wants to strip away that uppitiness they feel has been created. When government workers want to be treated with respect, this government doesn't feel they have that right. So now they're going to legislate it. That is one of the problems: when you have an employer who makes the laws, who writes the laws, you're always walking on a tender line, right on the razor's edge. Over the last years they have felt like working people — starting in 1973 to the present — but they always knew that the Social Credit government was one pen-stroke away from taking away what they had fought for for 40 years.

There was a union — called an association of employees working in the public sector. They were in existence for 40-odd years; they were affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress; they wanted to be treated like working people. But not until 1973 did they get an opportunity. Even at that time it was felt that bargaining rights would not be extended to include certain aspects. Management rights in the government sector have always been fairly clearly defined. For example, establishment has never been negotiable; in other words, how many people work for the government has always been the employers' prerogative. They have always had the right to determine how many regular and full-time employees there will be. It was always recognized that the business of government fluctuates in its need and in response to the community, and there would be employees required to carry out the services of government to be taken on in an as and-when capacity. Those employees were designated as auxiliary employees. So, rather than the old days that involved many different kinds of classifications — on call, temporary-continuous, part-time.... There were oodles of them, and they were ways of denying the public service any kind of benefits, protection, sense of job security or sense that in any respect the time they were putting in with the employer was going to be credited as an investment with the employer for seniority.

When bargaining rights came in in 1973 there was an attempt to rationalize that into two basic categories and statuses of public sector workers. Regular employees — which would be people occupying established positions — could be fired for just cause if they were not performing their duties; if there was any indication of that not occurring, that was a management problem, and something where management was delinquent, not the employees. If a person was occupying an established position but not performing his function adequately, he could be terminated for just cause, and a proper appeal process was put in place so that the merits of that particular termination could be determined. If the employer was correct, then it would be upheld, but if it was vindictive or not correct or not warranted, then there would be some kind of formal grievance process and a person would be reinstated.

Also, there were auxiliary employees, as I mentioned, and these were people who worked in institutions to cover holiday relief, sick time or fluctuations in the workload of government that could not be anticipated. The liquor stores are a perfect example: when they were busy around Christmastime or in the hot summer months when they sold a lot of beer, they took on auxiliary employees. They also had seniority credit; in other words, a person who was a good, reliable auxiliary employee with three or four years' service was called back to — work before someone with one week's service, and that is a sensible way to go. Every other private sector employer operates the very same way.

Among the regular employees there was a provision that was almost like an extended probationary period. A probationary period is generally about six months, according to the law, but there was a two-year period put in. If a person was a good, satisfactory employee doing a good job they were then given what they called regular status, and they weren't subject to the same layoff, but they were certainly subject to termination. There was always a massive margin of auxiliary employees fluctuating between 10,000 and 15,000 that were always subject to layoff — and all the regular employees that occupied regular positions but had under two years' service. It has always been possible to downsize government, to reduce the size of government, clearly using those provisions that were put in place in the collective bargaining process that started after the legislation came in in 1973.

Bill 2 takes away that scope of bargaining, and when you take a look at the entire package, in terms of the wages, that is dealt with in Bill 11, Bill 3 puts a whole new light on termination, reducing the rights of workers and stripping away their seniority. Then we have this bill before us now that limits the scope of bargaining until it is virtually non-existent. Even though the minister says they can still bargain wages, wages are covered in another bill. Clearly the guillotine hangs over all public sector workers in the province now, not just the ones covered under Bill 2. That guillotine hangs over them in terms of seniority, job protection, and proper appeals and discipline. The ultimate guillotine, of course, is termination, throwing away years and years of public service to the people of this province.

I think it is important to set this debate into context by citing an October 25, 1973, Hansard regarding the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The person introducing the bill was the Hon. Ernest Hall, someone I miss. I wish he was here with us, but in many respects he is here with us tonight because his ideas, his philosophy.... He is someone who always believed that working people, no matter what they did — whether they worked for a television station, a radio station, a nursing home — deserved some rights, deserved to be treated fairly, with respect, not as second-class citizens.

[ Page 2488 ]

He didn't believe in a hierarchical ranking of working people. You have rights because you work for such and such a place, and you work somewhere else and you don't have any rights. I would like to read a couple of remarks that were made at that time to set this debate in context.

As the House knows, in the spring session of this year I introduced into the House a bill entitled the Public Service Labour Relations Act, whose number at that time was 182. In a statement to the House I said that I would not be calling the bill for second reading but would instead let the bill remain, as it were, on the order paper so that all members and the public generally, together with all interested parties, could have an opportunity to look at the government's attitude towards the public service labour relations and what best form collective bargaining should take in this most important endeavour.

Mr. Speaker, even in that opening paragraph there is a marked departure from the present government's approach. Bill 2 was introduced into this House on July 7, and there hasn't been a full debate in public on this matter. There has not been an opportunity for any informed discussion in the community at all. There has not been any philosophical statement by the government other than that they want to save dollars, they want to save money. But they have not really attempted in any open and fair way to grapple with the problem with the public in an open way.

At that time Mr. Hall left the bill on the order paper for a considerable period of time, and then with all interested parties, so they could have the opportunity to look at the government's attitude.... That is the thing I was referring to a minute ago: respect for working people, no matter who they work for.

We've now had an opportunity to receive the information from those directly concerned, those indirectly concerned, from members and interested people. Now the bill has been reworked a little here and there and has now come before you in the form of Bill 75, still intituled the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

Mr. Speaker, what the bill seeks to do implicitly is to provide a system of free and full collective bargaining for the public servants of this province, which is long, long, long overdue. We're the last jurisdiction in Canada to present such a system to its Legislature. We're the last holdout for the old systems of paternalism and edicts, and I think that it's time now we got on with the job.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the minister at the time.... I see we've had a change of Speakers. Just to clarify for you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reread that paragraph, because it states a very important point; that is, that Mr. Hall, who was introducing the bill at the time, said that the Public Service Labour Relations Act........ "...what the bill seeks to do implicitly is to provide a system of free and full collective bargaining for the public servants of the province which is long, long, long overdue. We are the last jurisdiction in Canada to present such a system to its Legislature. We're the last holdout for the old systems of paternalism and edicts, and I think that it's time now we got on with the job."

Mr. Speaker, there was a recognition at that time that the kinds of things that Bill 2 and the other bills before us strip away — the ones that direct their attention to public sector workers.... Mr. Hall was saying that it was time in 1973 to address fully the question of public sector working conditions, the way employees relate to their employer, and the systems in place, so that there is a feed of information up and down the system to make sure that the people at he working level who are sitting in a nursing home, who are driving the trucks for the Ministry of Highways, who are working for the Forest Service and so on, can relate to the employer, to the management levels — how they can feed their information through, how the job could be performed better, how things could be done in a more cost-efficient way.

Mr. Speaker, shortly I'm going to be getting into some of the measures in terms of management stripping away any discussions and bargaining rights with respect to hours of work and work negotiations, which would not be allowed in the private sector — nor do private sector employers even put those kinds of things on the bargaining table in 1983. But many of these hours-of-work changes which the government is opposing have actually saved taxpayers enormous amounts of money. For example, in social services — let's say the apprehension of children — at one time social workers and people working in these areas worked straight time. They worked on a regular eight-hour shift, and anything over and above that was overtime. Children are not necessarily apprehended between 9 and 5, on an eight-hour shift. What happened was that flextime arrangements were negotiated where coverage was at different times of the day, which resulted in people taking a block of time off rather than having time and a half or double time. What it meant was that there was a response to the needs of the community at straight time rather than at double time. There were these kinds of incidents right through the public service. I could give you other examples. I don't know why the government doesn't stand up and recognize that those kinds of things do occur and have occurred very extensively in the public service.

[12:45]

Mr. Hall went on to say in his remarks in introducing this bill initially:

The government, of course, is honouring its election commitment; its program for many, many years has had an item such as collective bargaining for the public service.

The only problem was that the New Democratic Party and its precursor, the CCF, hadn't been elected, or it would have done it earlier. Probably we'd all have been better off, as you recognize, Mr. Speaker.

In many ways the party that preceded the New Democratic Party, namely the CCF, of course, was one of the first governments to bring in this kind of activity in its sphere of influence from time to time.

The system that we propose, envisaged in Bill 75, is innovative and it's unique. It's giving employees a real voice in determining the wages and working conditions which they have been requesting for years in place of the outmoded systems I've just referred to.

Mr. Speaker, I will commend to you a very interesting book. It's a history of government employees. The title of it escapes me at the moment; I think it's.... In any event, they refer back to, I believe, John Hart or someone of that ilk, who made a statement that he would never allow and there never would be, bargaining rights for government employees. I don't think Mr. Hall, in introducing this in 1973, ever thought that ten years later some of the people who were then sitting on this side of the House, like the present Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), would be sitting in the middle of the night — at a quarter to one in the morning — stick-handling through this House a bill that would take away the kinds of rights and so on that were granted at that time. I haven't looked at the vote yet on that bill. I don't know whether that Minister of Intergovernmental Relations voted for that bill. I wouldn't be surprised if he did. I would be very surprised, in fact, if he didn't.

[ Page 2489 ]

Mr. Hall pointed out:

The system is tailor-made to the unique conditions in British Columbia and it has not been tried anywhere else. British Columbia, as you know, Mr. Speaker, has the highest ratio of union members than any other place in North America. The bill recognizes the high degree of union activity and the history of attempted formulization of union activity even in the last 20 years.

I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that it is 31 years ago since the public servants of this province banded together and eventually formed the beginnings of the union that currently is the only one with which the previous government and this government have done business.

The next point he made was that "the bill envisages a two-tier system," and perhaps I could just expand on that point. Because government vocations are so vast, it's very difficult to establish commonality between one vocation and another — for example, the working conditions of a pilot and the working conditions of a psychiatric nurse. Although those individuals may see some similarities in terms of the working conditions, the kinds of things negotiated and addressed in the relationship with their employer would have to be dealt with in a way that would make sense. So the idea was to have two-tier bargaining. A master agreement covered those working conditions and benefits that affected the entire public service. That would be vacation leave, grievance procedure, seniority, union recognition; the kinds of things that would apply to all employees, whether they were at Bob Quinn Lake in the Highways yard there, or sitting in this building. Perhaps they're one of the crew working on this magnificent building to save it from falling down as a result of over 20 years of Social Credit government neglect. They didn't fix this Legislature up, and that's a matter of record, So the master agreement covered all of those broadbanded benefits and working conditions applicable to everyone. The other part would be the lumping together of similar occupational groups. For example, all of the building trades were in one component; all of the retail clerks — the people who worked in the liquor stores and so on — were in another. There would be a health component. They called them components, which they broke down. I believe they started off with something like 13 or 14 occupational components, ranging in size from the largest, which would be the clerical component, composed of roughly 12,000 clerks, down to relatively small ones — I believe they called them educational, scientific — who would be people such as economists, biologists and curators. They lumped those together. There was a correctional component made up of all the people who worked in the correctional institutions. I don't know if you've ever had an opportunity to visit — you probably have — some of the correctional institutions.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Here and abroad, Mr. Speaker. You know that those are tough, unpleasant jobs. There's a lot of stress involved. There's risk. There's shift work, of course, which is a hallmark of all public sector work. A lot of people don't realize that probably about half of the entire public service is on shift work. Shift work isn't just shift work on a daily basis. Shift work is working when other people are asleep. We do that in our job. The people who work in j ails, in hospitals, in institutions of all types, on ferries and so on; the people who work on Christmas day, on all the statutory holidays.... They do get extra benefits that they've negotiated in the past. I don't know how long they're going to have them with the legislation that's before this House. What I'm saying is that when most British Columbians are sitting enjoying turkey dinner with their friends on Christmas Day or New Year's Eve, public sector workers are looking after people in Woodlands School, doing these jobs that no one else really wants to do. The private sector has never wanted to do them.

Mr. Hall was pointing out that in order to grapple with such an immense problem, one that had been neglected for all of the history of British Columbia but that had been on the doorstep for 40 years, it took some clever thinking and a careful look at the Higgins report. It took some good-faith bargaining to sit down and structure an initial arrangement that would apply to the multitude of occupational groupings that were presently employed by the public service. He recognized that there had to be that two-tier bargaining which we're discussing, and that certain provisions had to be laid out in a public service labour relations act — items which would be bargainable and those which would not be negotiable. It was laid out very clearly at the time in a public service labour relations act by Mr. Dick Higgins, who is a very fine man and a very respected person who served on the Public Service Commission of this province, and who carried out the study jointly with, I believe, Mr. Fryer and others. At the time Mr. Fryer was working with him on an examination of the whole....

HON. MR. ROGERS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I've been listening quite intently to this history lesson that might be appropriate some other time in debate, but it's not appropriate to second reading of this particular bill. Second reading should deal with the principle of this bill, rather than an historic perspective of what was done by Mr. Ernest Hall when he was the minister responsible. Perhaps if we restricted the debate to the bill itself we'd be more in order.

MR. D'ARCY: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. There's no question in my mind that the line of discussion taken by the first member for Victoria is directly relevant to this particular piece of legislation. The fact is, the material we are debating here changes a long history of evolution. It does not change a particular piece of legislation, or change conditions that were suddenly zapped in there; it changes an evolution of bargaining and working conditions within the provincial civil service. The member for Victoria's line of discussion here is exactly relevant to the principles obtained in Bill 2.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. The Chair concurs with the opinion of the member for Rossland Trail that we are referring to the history of this type of bargaining, and as such it falls within the parameters of the principle of this bill. Please continue.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, if I may make specific reference to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, it states, as you quite correctly pointed out.... Section 13, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has indicated, is the key clause here. It was stated at the time — Mr. Hall did recognize it — that certain aspects would be excluded from bargaining, and those aspects were as follows: "Every collective agreement shall include all matters affecting wages or salary, hours of work and other working conditions, except (a) the principle of merit and its

[ Page 2490 ]

application in the appointment and promotion of employees, subject to section 20 of the Public Service Act." I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that it was always recognized that although the principle of merit was not negotiable, the weighting of the factors that included merit was negotiable. I think that was a key point. I know you have had some experience in labour-management relationships, Mr. Speaker, and I know you understand that certain occupations must have a certain weighting on the merit principle, because certain jobs demand certain activities, experience levels and education. In some occupations....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations understands that within the definition of merit are various factors.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly: I will attempt to do so.

Within the notion of merit there are various factors: seniority, education, experience, and so on. The thing is that even though the principle of merit was non-negotiable the weighting of those factors to determine how they applied to various classifications was. I think that was fair dinkum, because it makes a lot of sense. There are some occupations....

[1:00]

AN HON. MEMBER: How about diligence? Does that count?

MR. HANSON: Yes, it does.

If someone has worked very hard as a labourer and a truck driver's job comes up, it is recognized that seniority should be a weighted factor, all other aspects being constant. I think that's fair enough.

There are other kinds of jobs — for example, being a physician in the government service — where seniority is a negligible factor. What you're looking for is someone who can perform certain functions. Say someone is working at Riverview or Woodlands in psychiatric areas, or something like that. Clearly seniority in the public service is a minimal factor and would only be there in terms of promotion and so on, but not for hiring. You're looking for experience, training and skill levels. You recognize that, Mr. Speaker. So even though the principle of merit is not negotiable the factors of merit are.

The Pension (Public Service) Act has been a matter of some contention. I don't think that the unions liked that. They wanted to be involved in the investment and so on. But I think that there's general recognition by everyone that public sector pensions are an investment by employees, and that those revenues should be at the disposal of government to do government's good works.

I am the designated speaker, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In case the House did not hear that, the opposition has indicated the designated speaker on this bill will be the first member for Victoria.

MR. HANSON: When clause 13, which exempts pensions as a negotiable item, was introduced the unions were not happy about it. They wanted a say in the investment of those funds, and there are many good arguments that can be made that they should have, because it's their money. However, it is recognized and acknowledged on this side of the House, and throughout the community, that public service pension funds are an excellent pool of capital to do works of benefit to the community, whether it's hospitals or whatever. I think probably in the past the investment practices of the government have not been that wise. Over the last few years there has even been some acknowledgment and acceptance of the right of the various bargaining agents to have representation on the committee that invests the pension funds so that they would have knowledge of where they're invested. I believe that there's a schedule 1n the pensions act which indicates where the pension funds can be invested in certain types of bonds and so on: whether it's Hydro or hospitals, and so on. In other words, the pension fund couldn't be given to the Pez to take down to Henilo and see how he could do. I believe the Pez lost a bundle last year, Mr. Speaker. I read something in the paper. I think he lost about $5 million last year.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Oh, it's his investors who lost their money, not the Pez.

There is a schedule, I believe, that the pension money can be invested into, and there has been representation relatively recently on where those moneys would be invested and so on.

The third item is a clear declaration of management rights. That was put in the initial bill and made it very clear what the government's responsibilities were: items with respect to organization, establishment and administration of the ministries and branches of the government, except the effect of reductions in establishment of employees, which were to be negotiated by the parties. Now that's a key point. This poor little Social Credit government, that figures they have to take a legislative hammer to the public sector already had enshrined in law full rights to determine "the organization, establishment and administration of the ministries and branches of the government, except the effect of reductions in establishment of employees, which shall be negotiated by the parties."

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people do not understand what is meant by "establishment" of government. As I pointed out a moment ago, establishment is the number of people employed by the government full-time, and the government already has authority to organize ministries and so on. The only aspect that was negotiable was how the establishment was reduced and increased. In the reduction, there were just provisions for layoff and recall that were put into the collective agreements. This is the thing that the government refuses to accept: that they already have the authority to reduce the public service. They've been doing it over the last year by something in the order of 5,000 in the public service bargaining unit alone. All that was asked for and put in place at the time was layoff and recall provisions. They would determine what the layoff and recall units would be — a department, a particular workplace, a region, a town or whatever, because of the multitude of work environments that government employees find themselves in. So bargaining took place in good faith, and layoff and recall provisions were put in place.

[ Page 2491 ]

Seniority was a factor. There was provision for a no-layoff clause for two years' service which was then increased to three years' service. That meant approximately 15,000 of the 45,000 public sector employees in this bargaining unit were subject to layoff and could be laid off according to the collective agreement. What is perplexing the opposition and all fair-minded citizens in the province is why the government was to have legislation such as this and the other public sector bills when there are already contract provisions that will allow the government to achieve its objective. Clearly it's an objective that goes well beyond any kind of notion of reduction of the public service, or any notion of restraint; rather a vindictiveness, a governing by fear. They want to put every job in the public service at risk.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: It is true, Mr. Member. If you can lay off and recall according to the existing provisions of the collective agreement and reduce the service, why would you want to strip it away by law, and establish a whole new fashion to do it which is not fair and is contrary to all established provisions, both abroad and within our own country? The answer has to be a total power grab to return the public sector back to the old days where — as Mr. Hall said in his remarks in 1973 — it was based upon edict and patronage.

The fourth item that is exempted under the act is the application of the system of classification of positions or job evaluation under the Public Service Act and regulations. However, at the same time, other aspects of that were negotiable in the component parts of how a job could be broken down and what was involved in it. The employer always had the right to determine who should be placed in that position, and that was done by the recruitment and selection department of the Public Service Commission. I think that this government made one good move in separating GERB and the Public Service Commission. I think they're going to put it back together again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put what back together?

MR. HANSON: Put GERB and the PSC back together in the same body again. Is that what you're intending to do?

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: I thought you asked me a question. I wanted to answer it in due course and forthwith. I'll bring it back to you right away.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you eating?

MR. HANSON: Anabolic steroids.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's clear that there were exempted under the act a number of provisions that gave a clear demarcation of management rights, fully accepted, but somehow this little government doesn't seem to be able to exercise its authority under the existing law. I don't know what the problem is. Because as I've looked through the various arbitrations and umpire awards that the minister referred to in his earlier remarks about how the poor little government was taking a battering, the thing is that there's almost a fifty-fifty breakdown in terms of winning the awards. The government wins a little more than half of those umpire awards.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: No, I've been looking through them. I see that the minister doesn't realize that his government has won about half of the umpire awards. It's not as if they have been taking a shellacking. So what's the problem? Why do you have to bring out the sledgehammer? This is the thing.

Returning to my comments on section 13 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, clause (e) reads: "the procedures and methods of training or retraining all employees not affected by section 18, other than training programs administered with a branch or ministry that apply to one occupational group only." In other words, the government had the right to determine the procedures and method of training its employees. That's clearly stated; it was no threat to the government. I would think that employees could make a contribution, because people who do a job often know the job best, even better than someone who is working in a supervisory capacity above them.

Interjection.

[1:15]

MR. HANSON: Right. The boss is not always right, but the boss is always the boss. What we're saying, Mr. Speaker, is that there are enough clearly delineated provisions in section 13 to provide that the government could be boss, but rather than being boss they've decided to be emperor.

So it was recognized at the time that certain sections would not be negotiable. However, there were discussions taking place, that list was not cast in stone, and as time progressed it was recognized that greater input from the bargaining units could occur, notwithstanding the legislation, that could help. In other words, training programs; people know where they are deficient in the job in terms of their response to the community. Their input was increased over time. But Mr. Hall recognized at the time that these exemptions were to be in place.

When Mr. Hall introduced the bill in 1973, he said: "The bill proposes regulative procedures which include the right to strike. I maintain that giving workers the right to strike in a full and free collective bargaining system in effect reduces strikes...." I want to elaborate on that point a little bit. There are very simple-minded people who feel that when you take away bargaining rights — for example, the right to strike — you're not going to have strikes. All you're going to have, as the Minister of Labour knows, is illegal strikes — work stoppages, wildcats, Because an unhappy worker is an unhappy worker, whether he has the right to strike or not. And, you know, Mr. Minister, there were work stoppages and strikes in the public sector before they had the right to strike. The minister knows that. In fact, I think there were more work stoppages on the B.C. ferry system before the employees had the right to strike.

So Mr. Hall was very right when he said that he maintained that "giving workers the right to strike in a full andfree collective bargaining system in effect reduces strikes, reduces illegal walkouts, reduces lockouts, reduces the kind of recalcitrance that has been seen to appear in our public service over the years." I always liked Mr. Hall's language.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: He had verbal skills, Mr. Minister. A good soccer player, he was; I think he still can kick a ball.

[ Page 2492 ]

He went on to say: "There will not be any strikes if both sides work conscientiously." What we have happening now in our little time, on October.... Is it the sixth today?

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Still the fifth. We have a government that is not working conscientiously at making industrial relations in the public sector work. They think they can do it all with the stroke of a pen. What bargaining is, whether you've got laws or not, is what's in the attitudes of the people on both sides of the table. You can make things illegal, but you don't get harmonious industrial relations. That is the nub of this thing: we've got a government that wants to do industrial relations without any hard work, without conscientiously rolling up their sleeves. This government is a lazy employer. It doesn't want to sit down and tackle problems; it wants to get its pen out and write new laws hoping that'll solve all the problems. I think we are going to harvest an industrial climate that is going to be a serious hardship for everyone concerned, because this government is not doing the job properly.

Mr. Hall went on to say: "I would be foolish to suggest to you, and you would be even more foolish to believe it, if I said that everybody will accept this totally. There are obviously going to be some who resist the sweeping changes, and I certainly don't expect...." [Applause.]

It must be noted for the record, Mr. Speaker, that Alonzo Passarelli is in the chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure the hon. member for Atlin is aware of the standing order that doesn't permit one member to interrupt another when he has the floor.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, it's just a matter of deference.

AN HON. MEMBER: He just came in from a bear-hunt.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, that certainly makes it all worthwhile, if not proper.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's bare over there?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would expect that the hon. first member for Victoria, being uncovered, has the floor and will continue with the debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: The bear market is uncovered.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, all of B.C. is a bear market under the Socreds. Mr. Speaker, the very fine, competent minister of the time went on to say: "However, the vast majority will accept" — he's referring to the public and those opposed to the legislation — "and will find the significant improvements to the mutual advantage and to the better advantage of all of the people of British Columbia. Several new sections, Mr. Speaker, have been added to the bill that you saw in the spring session, namely a section on unfair labour practices...."

I think there are members on that side of the House who need to be reminded that Mr. Hall and our good government introduced clauses and amendments that allowed for religious conscience: people who could not belong to a trade union because Of religious conscience could be objectors and exempt themselves from the union. It was that kind of recognition, attempting to understand the diverse points of view in our society, which was the hallmark of our government. It was not a government that attempted to focus in on the narrowest extremist position at the exclusion of the well-being of others. There was that recognition. There were amendments on unfair labour practices and there were amendments....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May we have order in the House, hon. members. The interjections may well be entertaining, but they certainly are not relevant. Since none of the people interjecting has the floor, might we allow the first member for Victoria to continue with his debate.

MR. HANSON: I think it's important to understand the context and the history of this bill. We're clearly moving backwards in time, and the public is going to suffer and pay more money in the long run. There's going to be an unsettling effect in what has been a developing process of relatively harmonious industrial relations in the public service. There were more strikes and lockouts before bargaining rights were established and the right to strike was given.

Taking away rights does not guarantee stability in the workplace. In fact, this government has not been conscientiously working at being a good employer with some kind of good-faith bargaining and mutual respect; they feel they have to do with a stroke of a pen what they are incompetent to do at the bargaining table. They established the Government Employee Relations Bureau, which, last time I looked at the estimates, had about 75 to 80 employees and a budget of $4 million. They have competent, trained people in that ministry. I think they have recruited some excellent people. They are non-partisan and are there because they know their field. They have represented the government and the public of this province well, and yet the government feels it has to do legislatively what it can't do at the bargaining table.

Ultimately, Treasury Board — and properly so — has the final say on what a costed package is in negotiations, whether it's with the nurses, the professionals or others. Treasury Board determines that. The problem is that they don't have the basic attitude of wanting, as Mr. Hall wanted, that mutual respect in working out the most efficient, cost-effective, balanced delivery of public service to the people of the province. The bill he was introducing on October 25, 1973, was the incipient stages of something that has served the people of this province very well. Why does the government feel they can turn the clock back? I don't understand what their advisers are telling them. Where does this coterie of people who are giving this advice come from? Michael Walker and those people will be discredited in a very few months. Mr. Walker and his ilk have wreaked havoc in Britain and the United States.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, they've got three million people unemployed.

He stated: "We have taken in large measure, Mr. Speaker, the advice of the commission of inquiry into bargaining —

[ Page 2493 ]

not all of the advice, Mr. Speaker, but the advice that frankly we thought was first class...." What could be better than that a government would have a board of inquiry? There's no such board of inquiry backing up this bill. This is something that's come off the tops of their heads, or off the back of Mr. Walker or Mr. Ian Stewart, or those other advisers that seem to be holding this government hostage. They took the advice of Mr. Dick Higgins, a career public servant who was highly respected. He's in the Lawrie Wallace tradition in this province. He was an able, talented and dedicated public employee. He did a commission, which was examined. The very best elements of it were taken, and other elements that were not felt to be appropriate were held in abeyance.

[1:30]

Mr. Hall pointed out that they "rejected some of the structures that were enumerated in that report. We believe that now that we've seen the shape of things to come, as it were...." I can't debate this bill meaningfully without referring to Bill 11 to a little extent, if you'll allow me to do that, Mr. Speaker.

At the time there was what was called the civil service commission. It was changed to the Public Service Commission, because the old idea of civil servant is a servile....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm afraid, hon. member, that at this moment I do feel you are digressing just a little too far. You've been very good....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I'm not desirous of interrupting the hon. member, because I've certainly found his remarks interesting tonight. Certainly in his historical analysis — and I would say indeed in his rather eulogistic patronizing of Mr. Hall, which I'm sure Mr. Hall will find a great comfort when he checks the Hansards over the months to come — I think he's maintained without question a respectable degree of relevance. However, I would draw your attention to one factor, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has been speaking now for an hour and ten minutes, and he has canvassed extremely thoroughly existing section 13 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, chapter 346 of our statutes. I would just make the observation that I do hope future speakers will not go through the same material. This point has come up many, many times in debate. I think it's certainly fair and reasonable that the members have an opportunity to articulate the measures that are being repealed, or for which repeals are being sought, but not forever.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand the point raised. I would suggest that should that type of detailed discussion of the bill be attempted in the future, the Chair will probably find that discussion tedious and repetitious.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, further to the excellent point of order raised by the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey, I would like to point out that one of the reasons the first member for Victoria is being so thorough in his analysis is that unlike a number of other members in the House when we speak on a particular piece of legislation, the first member for Victoria has indeed read the bill. We must respect him for that. Knowing how infrequent that can be, or would appear to be, I think it unlikely that we're going to run into the problem that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey is concerned about.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I accept the confession of the hon. member for Rossland-Trail.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we get carried away, I think we're going to hear a point of order from the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member wants a little rest. Mr. Speaker, the first member for Victoria used to be an archaeologist in the Provincial Secretary's ministry. He's been showing that tonight by talking about ancient history. He hasn't got to the bill yet. I hope he'll get away from the ancient history lesson and get on with the current facts of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate that as the hour gets late on this Wednesday afternoon sitting we may want to interject, but as of this moment the Chair finds the debate of the hon. first member for Victoria relevant.

MR. HANSON: My point in mentioning some of the historical facts of collective bargaining in the public service of British Columbia is that we hear the age-old adage about history repeating itself, and clearly, we are going back to the bad old days of Social Credit in the 1950s and '60s.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The good old days.

MR. HANSON: That reinforces my point, Mr. Speaker. The Provincial Secretary is so preoccupied with old photographs of himself as Labour minister that he wants to harken back to those days, so that statutes look exactly the same as they did then, and the Labour minister has the same power and authority and wields the same kind of power in the public service. How dare those public employees have any say in sitting across a bargaining table and talking about their working conditions! Shame on them for wanting to sit there like human beings in an erect posture and talk to a government member as if that government member was another human being, and not a god.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The boss!

MR. HANSON: The boss indeed. There's nothing in the Public Service Labour Relations Act that threatens. Why do you feel so threatened? Why do you feel so frightened of those little clerks and tab technicians? Why do they scare you so much?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Archaeologists!

MR. HANSON: You're terrified of archaeologists.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Dig a hole, old bone polisher.

MR. HANSON: I might come and take a few measurements on you at some point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Personal!

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, just cranial.

Even the language, calling government employees civil servants, hearkened back to "Injah" and the old days, Mr. Speaker. The idea was to bring the language up to 1973.

[ Page 2494 ]

Rather than call it the Civil Service Commission they changed it to the Public Service Commission, and rather than calling them public servants they called them public employees. Language is loaded with connotations. One of the ways we move forward and move ahead is to change language. So Mr. Hall was pointing out that the Civil Service Commission would be the government's bargaining agent. Since that time, the Social Credit government divided the Public Service Commission into two parts. I thought it basically made some sense that you'd have the Government Employee Relations Bureau, which would be the bargaining agent for the employer, and that would look after the administration of the collective agreements, the contracts, and be the professional negotiators, and so on. On the other side, the Public Service Commission would look after selection and recruitment and hiring on the basis of merit. I think that separation of power was a good one. I think that kind of, approach served the public well.

Mr. Hall said the Civil Service Commission would be the bargaining agent on behalf of Treasury Board, because you can't have politicians sitting at the bargaining table. Here we have, in 1983, the Provincial Secretary, the minister of culture — I know he's also the minister of culture because he went to a convention in Newfoundland just last week, and probably had a lobster boil too, I would imagine.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No lobsters. I had Screech.

MR. HANSON: He had Screech instead. You know, it's unfortunate that that good bathing of his cortex with Screech didn't bring him to his senses and have him withdraw this bill, because this bill strips the bargaining that I've been talking about which has been developing for 40 years in this province, and came about 10 years ago. It strips it away. It's a false economy.

The Civil Service Commission would be the bargaining agent on behalf of Treasury Board. He said that by having a professional bargaining agent separate from the politicians — because they are accountable to the people in determining the costing of the entire package; they shouldn't be at the bargaining table........ But this minister wants to sit at the bargaining table and wear two different hats. He wants to be the politician and the minister, and over here he wants to be the professional, macho trade-unionist negotiator.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. member, I'm unable to find how that's relevant to the provisions of the bill before US.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, this is what has been happening around this bill. This minister has indicated he wants to be playing a role in negotiations.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not true.

MR. HANSON: Is that not true?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nope. Erroneous press reports.

MR. HANSON: Fair enough. Well press on, then.

Mr. Hall recognized that you can't have politicians at the bargaining table.

The determination of the people themselves, on both sides of the table, to negotiate exclusions to explore the whole grievance field, in my view, again is progressive and unique. I want to particularly refer, if I may, to the section on technological change, which I think is probably the most progressive in this country, if not on the continent.

For those of you who may care to seek some differentiation between the technological change Section in this bill and any others that may be before you, may I point out to the House, Mr. Speaker, that you must look upon Bill 75 as the first step in a twostep system. This step is, in effect, the first that goes toward getting a collective bargaining agreement with as many of the people as we can in the public service, and it has got a particularity and a singularity that shouldn't be confused with the overall Labour Code....

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hall's remarks aren't too much longer, and I would like to read a few more because they are pertinent to....

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's ancient history.

MR. HANSON: Well, it is history, but it's important history. I think that if I can state my case clearly to you, you're going to see the logic and the common sense of it, and you're going to set the bill aside and are then going to negotiate in good faith with your employees. You're going to explain clearly what your objective is, and you're going to use the existing provisions of the collective agreements to achieve your objective without having to resort to law which is ill conceived and ill founded. So that's why my remarks are trying to give you a picture that will give you a basis for judgment to set this bill aside. I think that that is my duty as the critic of your portfolio, and that is why I want to be as thorough as....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Why do you follow me around? You were the Lands, Parks and Housing critic too. Are you following me around?

MR. HANSON: Wherever you go I will be right behind you.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Always stay behind.

[1:45]

MR. HANSON: I'm looking forward to the day when you will be a critic on this side of the House. The old railroader will have to tough it out over here and look at his old photographs of railroading rather than the Labour ministry. Back on the branch line shovelling ballast....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Shovelling coal.

MR. HANSON: To continue with a few brief remarks from Mr. Hall, he is paying tribute to the people that worked on the study, Mr. Higgins and others:

Mr. Speaker, I can say as I prepare to take notes, as the debate ensues, that it has been a happy six or seven months and it has been a particular point of pleasure for me and for the Civil Service Commission to receive, in a very large way, the cooperation of the majority of the public servants of this province. I want to commend the public service of this province for its patience, its goodwill, its good temper over the 12 months that this bill — the gestation period, if you like, of this bill.

We have Mr. Hall talking about a 1973 gestation period of progressive labour relations in the province and here tonight....

Interjections.

[ Page 2495 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Your speech is being interrupted, hon. member.

MR. HANSON: Those are just gamma waves.

This bill during that time was referred to as the gestation period of a new industrial relations period in the province, but here we have the termination of that important move. He stated:

I want to go on the record of this House as paying that tribute to them. As I say, there are going to be some feathers ruffled and there may be some noses out of joint. But in the large and overall scheme of things this bill, I think, is a good one — a bill which will seek to and will suit the purposes of bringing into operation in this, the last province in Canada....

We were the last province in Canada to grant bargaining rights to the public service in the province, and here we have tonight a bill before us which moves us back to that period before bargaining rights were granted. He stated:

The Civil Service Commission and the representatives of the various groups have not been idle during the summer. It is fair to say that at the committee level, at the grassroots level, there have been tremendous strides made to facilitate the introduction of collective bargaining. Already there has been at committee level, still to be endorsed by a senior level, a surprising amount of agreement in a very short space of time on the facilitation of this act....

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: On a point of order, I was listening intensely to the first member for Victoria, but there are some animalistic sounds coming from the government back benches, and I can't hear the debate. Could you keep these wild, strange sounds that are generated from the comer from holding back the debate?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Try listening intently instead of intensely.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm having some difficulty. I'm scanning the ranks of both benches, and I hear nothing that can be considered animalistic noises. All the members on both sides of the floor are looking quite attentively toward the hon. first member for Victoria who, when given the opportunity, will continue with debate on Bill 2.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, your good words have cleared the air of the animalistic sounds, and I thank you for your guidance.

MR. HANSON: The member for Atlin is an advocate of humane trapping methods, and perhaps there could be some humane trap set down in that comet.

A committee was established to delve into all facets of bargaining, to make collective bargaining work in the public sector, to embark upon it in good faith, with diligence, with an attitude of building a new kind of process, but at the same time there was a recognition that there were certain provisions that were outside section 13 at the time of collective bargaining. What I'm trying to impress upon the government is that they don't have to legislate. They have adequate protection now for their management rights. They have adequate provisions to cover the areas of establishment, of organization....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm quite clear that, in my thinking, I have heard this line of argument earlier, not only from you but also from other colleagues in the opposition ranks speaking in this debate. I would ask you to attempt to move on to something novel and not repetitious.

MR. HANSON: I'm just about to do that.

What I'm about to do is to outline a few comments from the official opposition at the time, and how they felt that bargaining for public sector workers should he working, and I want to report on the remarks given by the gentleman who is now the Labour minister (Hon. Mr. McClelland). He was the first to respond. I don't know whether he was the labour critic at the time or whether he was the critic of the Provincial Secretary. The member for Langley was the first to respond:

At the outset I would like to say that the official opposition supports completely the concept of collective bargaining for the public service.

There were areas that he did not like.

However, we find that there is more than one principle in this bill. In addition to the fact that it is perhaps a multi-principled bill, it also contains a number of areas with which we have some concern, and I'd like briefly to outline some of those areas.

There was no objection at all to full bargaining.

For one thing there is, it appears, no prohibition of a strike during the term of an agreement in this bill. Strikes are permitted either on the master agreement as well as on any subsidiary agreement.

That was not the case, because you couldn't have a strike on a component agreement until you were in a legal position to strike. That member was totally wrong in his concern.

"In the bill the minister has, of course, placed the counter to a strike, which is a lockout. That turns out to be a completely phony concept, because you can't assume in your wildest imagination any lockout by the government." I can certainly see lockouts by this government. I think that by the way they've handled Bill 3, they are trying to provoke a confrontation because they think it will be to their political advantage to provoke public sector workers into some kind of a job action.

"Would you, for instance, lock out at Riverview? Would the government lock out the ferry system? The Workmen's Compensation Board? Provincial jails? No, Mr. Speaker, that provision is real window dressing." There was a lockout provision put in, and the object of it was to make collective bargaining work. With sound attitudes on both sides, it was felt that it would be a fair and just process. He states: "Section 27 perpetuates this government's disdain for contractual agreements." Can you imagine anything more hilarious in your life than to state...?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It was the truth. You violated all kinds of contracts when you were in government.

MR. HANSON: If any government has shown disdain for the sanctity of contract, it is this present Social Credit government.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You should have seen the NDP when they were the government.

MR. HANSON: The member for Langley said:

It seems fairly obvious that this section is aimed at ferry workers. But regardless of who this section is aimed at or what group of people, it is wrong in principle. As we have pointed out on a number of other occasions in this House, it is wrong in principle

[ Page 2496 ]

for agreements, contracts, memorandums of understanding or any other kinds of agreements reached between two parties to be considered by this government as mere scraps of paper.

The New Democratic Party never at any time regarded contracts as mere scraps of paper.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, come on. You weren't here.

MR. HANSON: The member responding to Mr. Hall's comments at the time reiterated on October 25, 1973, in Hansard, on page 955: "Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that there are perhaps two or three principles in this bill." This is the bill we're debating tonight, Mr. Speaker. "One of them, of course, is to allow collective bargaining in the public service. It's a principle for which you'll find no argument, I'm sure, in this House." Yet when we look at the behaviour of this government and at their attitude enshrined in legislation, we find that they are not consistent with the statements and arguments that they put forward when the bill was introduced, and clearly they are fully intending to strip away bargaining rights from public sector workers.

I want to quote from a member who is no longer in this House but who is someone dear to the heart of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom): Mr. D.A. Anderson. He would be quite upset to see the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations thumping his desk so heartily in support of Bill 2. Mr. D.A. Anderson, the member for Victoria at the time, said:

I rise to discuss this bill on second reading here with a great deal of interest. Perhaps unlike most in the House I have been a civil servant; I have been affected both before and after bargaining rights came in and I had the unfortunate experience of losing some $1,500 as a result of a provision in the federal legislation, which is very similar to a provision in this one, which I'll describe later on. But I certainly would caution people who think that collective bargaining in the civil service is an easy or quick thing that can be introduced.

I certainly can understand and endorse that statement; it's something that is worked on conscientiously by both parties to make it work to the best of all the public.

As far as the whole concept of collective bargaining goes, which I presume is the principle of the bill, I have no objection to it whatsoever. My own personal view is there should be the maximum amount of consultation, discussion and involvement of employees....

The employees have not been involved in the bill before us tonight. They were not consulted, and there is a provision in the bill which calls for notice of any legislative change which affects the collective agreements of the various bargaining units. That was never done; it's a violation. So that government claims to be supporting the sanctity of contract and respecting.... A collective agreement, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is a contract, a legal document. In that document was a legally binding provision that the government would serve notice and advise them of any legislative change, and that was not done. It was done in this House on July 7, when Bill 2 was laid down with the other 26 bills.

[2:00]

I think Mr. Anderson's points here are interesting, because he stresses the importance of involvement on a general basis just to make bargaining work: "...in the question of working conditions, wages and differentials between the various categories of people working in certain areas, I think that the more involvement there can be of the employees in this the better off we will all be. This is particularly true of course of the civil service, which is such a big employer of labour." That's a major point: the government is a major employer of labour. It should be a model employer, an employer that is a beacon not to the advantage of others in the private sector but, in terms of its attitude of involving people....

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We know, Mr. Speaker, that industrial relations that we see in other jurisdictions thrive and flourish on their ability to involve labour, business, government, and all interested parties in sound decisions. That seems to be a fruitful and productive way to do business. But we have a government that wants to be combative, that is pugnacious, that wants to fight with its employees, that wants to provoke rather than consult. I think the record is very clear. There's always a provocation, and not a consultation process. It comes from the attitude that the government is unwilling to recognize that its own employees have rights and should be treated the same as working people in the private sector.

I'm just making passing reference to some comments made by David Anderson, who was in this House when this bill was brought in. He had a couple of queries, and I think that's fine and legitimate: "We question — and I think at this stage in the discussion of the principle of the bill that's about as far as we can go — the position of the government with respect to the right to strike and with respect to essential services." Clearly that's of concern to everyone, and it's something that was negotiated with the Government Employee Relations Bureau: what the complement would be to maintain.... Whenever there was any suggestion of a work stoppage 1n the public service, there was always full negotiation and consultation between the bargaining agents and the Government Employee Relations Bureau to establish the complement of people required to maintain the essential services of the province. That always has been in effect, and has never been a problem. Usually a complaint comes because people feel they should be essential, but the employer does not determine them to be essential. That has been the case in a number of instances. GERB and the professionals, or the nurses or the bargaining unit of the public service have sat down and negotiated who would be maintaining the services. They come up with a list, and the only complaint is that somehow the list is not large enough to include everyone who feels they should be there.

He goes on to indicate that he's very supportive of collective bargaining. I don't seem to have the actual vote in front of me, but I think the Liberals of the time, who are now Socreds, voted for this; the Liberals who were Liberals voted for it; the Tories who were Tories voted for it; and of course the New Democratic Party brought it in, introduced it and made a major contribution to the life of public employees in the province, one which was long overdue. As I've noted, we were the last jurisdiction in all of Canada to introduce bargaining rights for government employees. I've cited some of the introductory remarks and....

Oh, I do have the vote, Mr. Speaker. We did have some nays: Mr. Curtis, who was a Conservative at the time, and Mr. Wallace, also a Conservative, voted against the bill at second reading. They opposed collective bargaining for public sector employees. I can see how the legislation today flows from that attitude, because that person occupies a key treasury bench position as the Minister of Finance at this time. I'm sure his attitude has influenced to a large extent the attitude of this government. The people of Saanich who work in public

[ Page 2497 ]

sector occupations should take cognizance of the fact that their own MLA never supported, not even in principle, collective bargaining for government employees. That tells you a lot, I think.

I now want to move on to some new material and to discuss in more detail some of our concerns about the specific clauses of the bill. I would like to read into the record some of the basic points of the bill and our concerns in opposition to it.

The bill applies to all public service employees, as defined under the Public Service Act, who are organized by unions under the Public Service Labour Relations Act. A similar amendment to the Labour Code would be necessary to apply the provisions of the bill to all other public sector workers under the jurisdiction of the province — i.e., employees of school boards, hospitals, colleges, Crown corporations, etc. As you know, many public sector workers are shielded; they are employees of the government but they operate under boards or Crown corporations, and as such come under the Labour Code. For example, the employees of the B.C. Systems Corporation are under the code; B.C. Buildings Corporation; B.C. Ferry Corporation; Emergency Health Services Commission, I believe. There are a large number of Crown corporations where the employees, although they were government employees at one time and may even have been covered under the Public Service Labour Relations Act, are now covered under the....

I'm just pointing out that public sector workers are working under different laws. If the government wanted to make public sector workers identical in all respects to workers in the private sector, then rather than undermining their bargaining authority and bargaining rights under this bill, they should be putting the public sector workers under the code. If they wanted to make all working people in this province — working in the private sector and for government — under the same provisions, then they should put them under the Labour Code and not have a special bill, because that destroys....

The argument of the government that they are attempting to make public sector workers the same as private sector workers is erroneous, misleading, false in all aspects. Clearly they don't want them under the code because they don't want them equal; they want them substandard.

Mr. Speaker, the bill repeals section 13 of the act: "Content of collective agreement." I went through that content of collective agreement section of the Public Service Labour Relations Act and pointed out that there were adequate protections in those sections of management rights, which are very strong and well defined. There's no reason why the government has to alter it or strip it away. The bill repeals section 13 of the act, "Content of collective agreement," and basically eliminates the power of the union to collectively bargain any issues other than wages and the placement of individuals within the classification system. The wages portion, the argument that wages are still negotiable, means nothing because the wage question is already suppressed in Bill 11; the wage controls under Mr. Peck and this minister are enshrined in Bill 11 in perpetuity.

The people affected by this bill will not have any rights to bargain at all. They can't bargain their wages, nor the really significant portion of their working conditions, hours of work and so on. As I pointed out, shift scheduling and modifications to hours of work that have been developed, negotiated and are in place, are not an encumbrance or a hindrance to the delivery of service. In actual fact they save a lot of money.

AN HON. MEMBER: A major cost item. Millions and millions of dollars.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, I rise on standing order 43. In the last two hours, I think the Chair has given this speaker a fair amount of latitude. In particular I believe it's the third time we have gone around with this speaker to discuss what provisions of clause 13 have been omitted and the significance of it. I think we are clearly getting into the realm of tedious repetition. I'd ask the Chair to direct the member speaking.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order being made, I will accept a point of order from the....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member is allowed to rise on a point of order. Any member of the House can do so. The Minister of Agriculture and Food may wish to do so.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I agreed earlier with a point by the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom) that the first member for Victoria had been dealing with legislation and legislative debate in the past, but paying close attention to the member for Victoria's debate, he is dealing now with the present, the future, the bill, and with the relevancy of the bill. The perhaps well-intentioned point of order by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam that he is being tedious and repetitive I believe is simply unfounded. In fact, the member for Victoria is on new material at the present time as opposed to his line of discussion of perhaps half an hour or 45 minutes ago.

I'm being a bit lengthy in dealing with the point of order, Mr. Speaker, but I realize there have been some shifts in the personnel of the Chair.

[2:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank both members for their points of order. The Chair will listen carefully, of course. I'm sure that the first member for Victoria will introduce new argument to the principle of the bill before us, and not revisit material that has been canvassed for some time now. Please proceed.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated, I'm into a new chapter in my discussion. I'm talking about the specific implications of section 13, and clearly that's what the bill is about. There have to be references to section 13.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Maybe next time.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that that former Speaker should be threatening the Speaker of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not germane to the bill.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, you are our Speaker, not his Speaker.

[ Page 2498 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not germane to the bill either. Does the member wish to continue to speak to the bill, or discontinue his speech?

MR. HANSON: The current section 13 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act has an introductory clause stating that: "Every collective agreement shall include all matters affecting wages or salary, hours of work and other working conditions, except...." Then it outlines the various elements of administration and so on that are excluded from collective bargaining. In effect, this was a residual clause giving the union the right to bargain working conditions with certain defined exceptions. This clause I repealed, and the amendments to the section clearly and severely restrict or abolish bargaining on a wide range of issues which have hitherto been agreed upon and a part of collective bargaining. You're taking away previously existing negotiated rights. I am not aware of any abuses. I am not aware of anything that could not be reconciled at the bargaining table. But we have a government that, rather than negotiate in good faith at the bargaining table, prefers to take the chicken approach, to take an approach which is cowardly, where they use power and pound people, as opposed to sitting and consulting and coming to a mutually agreed-upon resolution of a dispute. That is a cowardly way for a government to behave.

Clause 13(a) of the current act provides that a collective agreement should not affect the principle of merit in the appointment and promotion of public service employees. In practice this clause has been interpreted to mean that the application of the merit principle can be bargained. This has been reflected in collective agreements. The principle of merit is not negotiable, but the weighting of the factors that comprise merit is negotiable: experience, seniority, education, skills, and so on. That's a part of it. But this government objects to it because they want to be able to hire their pals. They want to be able to hire and fire at will.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't believe I see any mention of that in the bill. Please, to the bill.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, when you're altering that clause, you are also affecting the manner of recruitment.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Yes, it's moving away from the merit principle. No public service should be based on anything other than merit. If it is not based on merit, then it is based on the vagaries of politicians and partisanship and so on. We know of other jurisdictions where, when governments change, entire working levels of public services change.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, please.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, this is relevant to the bill.

In speaking to the bill and the application of merit....

The new section 13(l)(a) 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 should be seen as a clear attempt to undermine a professional public service and restore a patronage system. We don't want that, and the people of the province don't want it. The application of merit is the most fundamental principle in the public service. You must appoint on the basis of objective criteria, not politics or some other subjective aspect which is unfair and doesn't serve the public well.

The amendment centrally challenges article 12 of the BCGEU master agreement. I think what I should do is just make all members aware of what that particular clause states. While I'm locating the master agreement, I want to tell you a little about article 12 of that agreement, to which this government is a party and on which this government wants to renege. Service career policy: current provisions that would be threatened or removed include postings of job vacancies. As you know, one of the recruiting procedures which is a vitally important part of any public service is to offer employees an opportunity of promotion or job placement and so on. One of the aspects of that is to have a fair posting system so that people are made aware of the postings that are coming up through the Public Service Commission. So that was negotiated, and they negotiated the different work locations and so on where the postings should be located.

I want to read you the language of article 12 and the various clauses that will be affected as this bill passes through its various stages to completion, unless we can convince the government of the error of its ways. I think you can see very quickly the various principles of fairness, principles to ensure that merit is applied and favouritism is not interjected into this process. Article 12.01 calls for a union observer. "The general secretary of the union or his or 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." The exclusion of management positions gives the government the extra authority and clout to make sure that the people who are not in the bargaining unit are the people they particularly want.... So there is a lower standard of protection there in terms of hiring for managerial people than for people in the bargaining unit. In the bargaining unit it was recognized that human beings are human beings and can for one reason or another dislike a person because of the cut of his jib or some factor that should not be introduced into the promotion or career policy of an employer. It was recognized that to have a disinterested third party present on a selection panel would make it fair for both sides. That is what this little book — and other books like it in both the private and public sectors — is all about: a system of fairness. We are opposing Bill 2 and the stripping away of bargaining provisions for government employees and the exclusion of these kinds of protection because it lays the groundwork, as a precursor, for favouritism and patronage and various other kinds of behavior that should not be part of the process.

Article 12.03 is another affected clause if Bill 2 goes ahead. It is the appeal procedure on an unsuccessful candidate, according to the existing contract. "An unsuccessful candidate may request an explanation from the panel chairperson by telephone of the reasons why he or she was unsuccessful...." It's very important, when you understand....

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on standing order 43. I would suggest that this speaker is once again becoming tediously repetitious — not so much his own arguments, but arguments used by other members in debate. Previous members of the opposition debating this bill have raised this

[ Page 2499 ]

particular section. They have not only read it verbatim, as this member has done, but they have debated it at length.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for his point of order, and I will call the attention of the member now speaking to standing order 43, and perhaps, in detail, point out that standing order 43 calls on the Speaker or the Chairman to draw to the attention of the member who persists in irrelevance and tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of arguments used by other members in debate.... The Speaker may direct him to discontinue his speech if the member continues to speak.... I will ask the member for Victoria to enter into new material on this bill or to take his seat.

MR. HANSON: Clearly, to address the provisions of the bill, I must make references to the affected clauses in the contract. To deny me that right....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If they have been made by other members, you offend standing order 43.

[2:30]

MR. HANSON: I will heed your advice, but I will have to make some reference.... However, I will introduce some entirely new material just to accept your guidance.

I am going to talk about the anticipation of the passage of this bill that is taking place and the various clauses that seem to be affected in the negotiations taking place at the Pacific Vocational Institute. What we are getting here — and I'm going to present it to you — is a foreshadowing of the kinds of bargaining that will take place in the public service, because it's the same contract. As you know, the master agreement in the bargaining unit of the public service is the master agreement at the Pacific Vocational Institute. Those particular negotiations are underway. I think it's important that all members of the House understand what changes are occurring, because this agreement totally anticipates the changes introduced in Bill 2. I think that when I point these out to the minister, he will agree that it would be best to set Bill 2 aside and commence negotiations with the various bargaining agents — the nurses and the professionals and those other government workers in other institutions. The Pacific Vocational Institute contract covers the vocational instructors, who at one time were direct government employees and are now working under that particular institution, but under the same contract.

Here's the existing language: "There shall be two categories of employee...." This is what I pointed out earlier. There was a process of rationalization of all these different casual, on-call, part-time, as-and-when, "when we call you" — this kind of way of doing business with employees — to two statuses: regular employees occupying established positions and auxiliary employees, who were the people who took up the slack and who were let go as needs required and as economic and organizational factors demanded. The provisions are in the existing agreements to handle that kind of ebb and flow of services required by the public. There are a fairly substantial number of established positions — regular employees — that are also subject to layoff and recall. These are people with under three years' service, and they are in great numbers. I think the ballpark number is 12,000 to 15,000 auxiliary and under three years' service. What I'm saying is that those provisions do exist. The language will change.

In the definitions, number 5 says: "There shall be two categories of employee, covered by the terms of the agreement, 'regular' and 'substitute' employees." They call them substitute employees, rather than auxiliaries.

"Employee means a member of the bargaining unit, and includes (a) a 'regular employee,' which means an employee who is employed for work which is of a continuous, full-time nature, or an employee whose initial appointment is three calendar months or more, and does not include: (i) a substitute; (ii) a person excluded by section 1 of the Labour Code of British Columbia; (in) a person excluded pursuant to article 2.01 of this agreement; (iv) a person who works less than 22 workdays in any consecutive 120 day period;

"(b) A 'substitute employee' means an employee who is appointed pursuant to article 31 and is substituting for a regular employee for a period of less than three calendar months, or an employee whose initial appointment is less than three calendar months."

I think it's important to introduce now the proposed amendment by the employer, which will be the kind of thing that will occur in the bargaining units affected here in the future by this bill:

"Delete all current language and replace with the following:

"'Employee' means a member of the bargaining unit and includes: (a) a regular employee who is employed for work which is expected to be continuous, and therefore the appointment is without a specified term; (b) a temporary employee who works on a casual or on-call basis to provide relief for occasions such as annual leave, illness, leave of absence and where the appointment is not continuous or is normally less than three months' duration."

The significance, Mr. Speaker, is that the appointment is without any specified term. There's an expectation of continuous employment, but there is no security there at all. There is no sense that the person will be a part of the establishment of the operation in any respect, and they can't be aspiring to that.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, there are many field employees in government service: biologists, Fish and Wildlife, geophysical work for Tumbler Ridge, mining work, inventory and that kind of thing. Field status is an important thing because it defines where they are headquartered when they're doing this for the summer months, the winter months, or whatever; it relates to how they get to work and when they come back and so on — normal sorts of things. Field status is to be deleted entirely. "Employees who are normally required to work away from their point of assembly and who on a day-to-day basis do not work in an office, institution, plant or other similar fixed location which is a normal point of assembly...." There's no designation of field status, which means that you would be subject.... If you were working at the Pacific Vocational Institute, you would be subject to being dispatched to wherever, for whatever, do whatever, without any separate provisions that would cover the kinds of situation you would be working under. That fails to recognize that there are reasonable and distinct aspects that people working in the field should be subject to, rather than having an employee, so to speak....

[ Page 2500 ]

They also want to delete "seasonal field employees," which are "those employees who occupy positions which permit them to be normally domiciled at their permanent headquarters, but who are assigned field duties on a seasonal basis, returning to their permanent headquarters when not working in the field."

They don't want to delete the shift schedule per se but they want to take out.... It flows from Bill 2 through negotiations. So you have a shift schedule not negotiated. It's defined entirely by the employer. That may sound fine because the employer does ultimately have the right to determine the schedule through negotiations. The negotiating process is not a balanced thing; it is tilted to the employer. If the employer doesn't want it, he doesn't get it. However, here the employees will not have any say in their shift schedule at all. The reason we object is that oftentimes the employees can save the employer money and do a better job, a more efficient job, if they can negotiate and piay a role in advising the supervisors and the people downtown, who often don't know what a whole lot of nines are. The service can best be provided by those who know what the working level of the operation is.

Termination is not covered.

"'Transfer' refers to the movement of an employee from one geographic location to another." That's to be deleted and replaced. Here is the language from the employer, which is the same kind of language we're going to see here: " 'Work schedule' is the pattern of work hours scheduled to meet the operational and training requirements of the institute." The employees have no say at all. If they decide to go seven days a week, 24 hours a day, that's the way it will be. The employees don't get to negotiate or have any say in that at all. That will create difficulties that will be, I think, not in the best interests of the public, because they'll end up paying more in the long run, because as contingencies arise and costs are required, then what we'll have happening is that overtime bills will build. I heard something a while back — a comment in the House here — about the size of overtime bills. The overtime bills were very large prior to collective bargaining, because people were asked to perform a duty, whether it was to apprehend a child or do a particular job — highways jobs.... There are various kinds of things that can be carried out where the employees are best able to understand what is happening.

We've heard a lot about management rights, and I think, even though the Provincial Secretary denied me an opportunity to have a transcript of his speech.... I guess it's in the Blues here now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. That has been discussed and dispensed with. Please proceed to the bill.

MR. HANSON: We've heard a lot from the government about how they feel that their own strength has somehow been eroded by this powerful group of clerks, lab scientists, curator's helpers, labourers and so on — these people who are so tough. The keypunch operators and clerk-steno 1s and 2s have got this government on the ropes. So this government needs to have a bill, a legislative package, to strip away their rights. Here's the management rights clause presently in existence in the bill, and I want to tell you what the management rights clause to be introduced consists of

MR. PARKS: On standing order 43, Mr. Speaker, a number of members of the opposition speaking on this bill have specifically referred to this clause, not only to read it but to discuss it at length. I believe the member is about to embark once again on tedious and repetitious debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The point of order is well taken, and I would ask if the member could embark on new material with respect to this bill. The Chair will continue to accept points of order from members who feel that you are offending standing order 43.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I am not offending standing order 43; I am introducing entirely new material that has not been introduced at all by any member on this side of the House. This is the Pacific Vocational Institute agreement. No other member has discussed it, no other member is in possession of it, no other member will be discussing it. So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to be proceeding on this item for the elucidation of the government, because if they understand what their agents are attempting to do on their behalf, I'm sure this government will pull back on this piece of legislation.

[2:45]

Currently there is a clause which was violated by this government. It's called "Future legislation." This will be deleted. "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." This government has not done that. They are doing by legislation what they haven't been able to do at the bargaining table. Here we have a provision that says that if any future legislation renders null and void a clause of their contract, the parties will sit down and negotiate a provision that will replace that provision that was rendered null and void. What does management say? This comes from GERB, probably, because these will be standardized all the way through the government service and the bargaining agents: "All rights, powers and authority to plan, manage and direct the operations and the workforce of the institute are retained solely and exclusively by the institute, and remain without limitation within the rights of management." Under "No cessation of work," it says: "The union agrees" — this is the clause that is to be inserted — "that there shall be no strike, walkout, slowdown or other interruption of work by any employee or group of employees during the term of this agreement. The institute agrees that there shall be no lockout of employees during the term of this agreement."

Another one to be deleted is a conflict-with-regulations clause: "In the event that there is a conflict between the contents of this agreement and any regulation made by the institute or on behalf of the institute, this agreement shall take precedence over the said regulation." Here we have a situation where we have legislation in conflict with the contract....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. I'll remind the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) that there is a prohibition about reading newspapers in the House. Sir Erskine May.

[ Page 2501 ]

MR. HANSON: Another clause to be deleted as a direct result of Bill 2, even though Bill 2 isn't passed, and being carried out by the employer's bargaining agent is a notice to delete the notice of legislative change. In other words, the bargaining unit of people who work in all the agencies of government is not entitled to know, be consulted or be advised in any way when there is to be a legislative change to affect them. This is the clause that currently is in place and will be deleted: "The institute agrees that no proposal submitted by the institute to amend, repeal or revise the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act, the Labour Code, or regulations made pursuant thereto, which would affect the terms and conditions of employment of employees covered by this agreement shall be put forward without first notifying the union in writing of the nature of the proposal."

In "Union recognition and rights" we have a substitute clause. They want to delete: "The parties recognize that referral to the legislated authority is the ultimate step to resolve a dispute, and that the parties will make every attempt to freely and fully negotiate the matter of exclusions and to resolve the issues as expeditiously as possible." That clause is to be deleted, and a new clause flowing from Bill 2 is to be put in. This clause is: "Where the institute seeks to exclude a position which currently exists in the bargaining unit, the institute shall advise the union in writing. Where agreement is not reached within fourteen (14) days of receipt of notice of the institute's intent, the matter may be submitted to the. legislated authority for adjudication." This is not negotiated any more, Mr. Speaker; it is legislated.

Secondly, a clause to delete: "The institute shall make every attempt to provide time prior to making an appointment for the process outlined above to be completed. Where it becomes necessary to fill a new position in dispute, the incumbent will not be considered in the unit until determination is made by the legislated authority. Established or upgraded positions in the bargaining unit shall not be excluded except by mutual agreement or a decision of the legislated authority."

So clearly there is a mood, a posture and an approach being taken by the government which has reflected that management rights are going to be stated in bolder relief than they need to be. They are already there. Management rights are already enshrined in all of these contracts; it is already indicated what can and cannot be negotiated. In areas of dispute where they've had umpires to make adjudications, the umpires have made decisions pretty much on a bell curve: 50 percent in favour of the employer, 50 percent in favour of the union. It's just about as much as any disputes procedure on the long term would expect. So what's wrong with that? Why does it have to be done by a bill to take away everything, to throw the baby out with the bathwater? It's not going to create a climate of cooperation; it's going to create a climate of confrontation. What we're saying is that it appears that that's what the government wants.

"Union recognition and rights." The Provincial Secretary mentioned in his introductory remarks that this would still be negotiated. Let's look at the current language. "Recognition and rights of stewards." The minister says that union recognition will continue to be recognized; what I'm saying is that the proposals being put forward by the Pacific Vocational Institute bargaining unit acting in anticipation of the changes in Bill 2 — and they will certainly reflect language through all collective agreements in the public service affected by this bill — will diminish the role and recognition of stewards.

The existing proposal is very clear. I don't see what the problem is, but the new one is that they want to limit the number in the entire institution. A better approach would be to identify the work units that need or warrant a steward, rather than coming across with some arbitrary number that there are going to be five or six in the institution. What's the point in that?

Clause after clause is being anticipated by bargaining agents to respond to the bill. Here's one, for instance. "The union shall provide the institute with reasonable notice prior to the commencement of leave under this article." This is "Time off for union business." It is the same agreement. "The institute agrees that any of the above leaves of absence shall not be unreasonably withheld." So there is a new restriction on leave to attend union business. If you have a structure within a workplace, where clearly you don't want every employee going and whining away to a supervisor, it's a far better process to have one individual to whom an employee, if he has a problem, can discuss it with the steward and then the steward takes it up with the supervisor. That's a funnel.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bureaucracy.

MR. HANSON: That's not bureaucracy at all. It is a way of streamlining so that you don't have a whole bunch of people involved. I know from my own experience, often the shop steward will tell the employee: "That's not a grievance. That's just a personality problem. You go and deal with Jack yourself." What I'm saying is that a shop steward performs a role for management, whether management recognizes and agrees with it or not. The shop steward resolves a lot of disputes and grievances in the workplace that really shouldn't be going up the ladder and creating havoc. It is important to have that role and to have it recognized by the employer. The employees will elect a person whom they have confidence in, and if that person fails to do the job properly, then he doesn't get elected the next time around.

The new provision is: "The union shall provide the institute with written...notice of a request for approval of leave under this article. The union recognizes that institute review and approval of leave as required under this article will take into account both training and operational considerations and requirements."

What we have is a rolling back. The old train is in reverse. Rather than benefiting, the public is going to be hurt by it.

In the case of section 12, which is one of the first ones referred to a minute ago, the provisions that refer to job postings, union observers, appeal procedures for unsuccessful service applicants, protection of the employee against relocation and seniority of auxiliary employees applying for regular positions will be altered. What we have is elimination of protection from relocation which is used as a means to reduce employment by attrition. When you change protection from relocation, what you have oftentimes — and this is one of the things in Bill 2 — is relocation used as discipline. If you don't like somebody, then you transfer them to Bob Quinn Lake. You know they have kids in school....

AN HON. MEMBER: A lovely place.

MR. HANSON: Relocation was used in the past and will be used in the future for discipline. Certainly there are some

[ Page 2502 ]

job locations that are more desirable than others in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's how Australia got started.

MR. HANSON: "That's how Australia got started," somebody said. There are people who want to live in Kelowna or Vancouver or Prince George or wherever, but....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. Earlier, hon. members, I asked the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) if he would discontinue reading his newspaper because it does offend the rules of parliament. A citation from May's nineteenth edition, page 434, will demonstrate that. Perhaps if the member would show the House the courtesy of obliging our standing orders, the parliament would be well served.

[3:00]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, moving on to 13(l)(b), the collective agreement can't deal with matters under the Pension Public Service Act. Note that the government has introduced amendments to the act.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: It's not historical at all. Another item, on 13(l)(c).... I touched on that earlier. Clearly the government....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Clearly the member, by his own argument, is admitting to repetitious debate. Can we please have some new material.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I'll give you some new material right this moment. Hours of work is a fundamental right of employees to be able to negotiate.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Since 1827, yes. Mr. Speaker, it was 1875 I believe....

The hours of work are very complicated in the government. You've got people on shift work, you've got people on ferry work, you've got people on 9 to 5 and so on, and why shouldn't it be negotiated? You're going to get a lower overtime bill and a better response and delivery of service if you allow government and the employees to negotiate hours of work and work scheduling. That's fundamental.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, we really are beginning to stretch the tedious repetition to extremely tediously repetitious. This hon. member — not another hon. member of the opposition, but this one — has already explained to us how prison workers and health care workers who have to apprehend children, etc., should have been given the right to continue to negotiate hours of work. Clearly, in my opinion, he is coming right back to the same arguments, and if that is not tediously repetitious I do not know what is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order is extremely well taken. The member participating in debate in a bill of this nature, which has only one section, should be reminded that we cannot be tedious and repetitious. I will ask the member to advance new arguments or otherwise take his place and discontinue his speech. Can the member advance new arguments?

MR. HANSON: Yes, I certainly can, Mr. Speaker. This particular contract anticipating the passage of Bill 2 is substituting: "The parties to this agreement recognize the institute's right to establish hours of operation and to schedule work in order to provide effective training and service delivery levels as a first priority for students and the public." Well, of course, everyone agrees with the delivery of service and training, but what it ignores and what the government can't seem to understand is that it is important to involve employees.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That argument has been advanced by many speakers this evening. If we're going to have the conviction to speak to the principle of the bill, I think we should use our own arguments and not those which have already been expressed.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, we have a negative thing happening in industrial relations in British Columbia. We have a government that is signalling all of the management and personnel operations of all Crown Corporations and government agencies that they have a licence to override the constructive, decent and respectful evolution of bargaining rights in this province for public sector workers.

Mr. Speaker, I am not the only person who opposes this bill. Nor am I the only person who does not want to go back to the bad old days. This bill is vindictive. It's a bill to exercise political power in a manner that is entirely inappropriate. It's going to hurt the public, both in terms of quality of services that they should be receiving and in terms of the amount of money that is required to pay and meet the obligations, because these are not going to be timely and cost-effective means of settling disputes. The government has politically contrived this situation because it wants confrontation and is provoking it; it's operating on the basis of polls. That's absolutely true. Rather than being an advocate for their own employees and carrying the message to the public that people who work at Woodlands or Glendale laundry or do some other job for the public are doing a good job working hard and should be respected, this government prey upon them politically and try to maximize advantage by levering against their own people. It's a tradition of Social Credit that is long standing; it goes back a long, long way in this province. Everybody recognizes it.

Mr. Speaker, there are people in this province who understand the way it used to be, and they don't want it to be that way any more. We had evolved a process where the buried Carrothers report was resurrected and Mr. Higgins came forward with good recommendations which were acted on by the New Democratic Party government. Here we have the government rolling it back. It's a sad and shameful day. It is not clarifying the intent of the act, because in all the arbitrations and umpire awards it was a fifty-fifty split. So we can only condemn the bill.

How a politician could enter into bad faith bargaining with his own employees at this time.... All that the nurses, professionals and the bargaining unit have asked is to set aside Bill 2 so they can negotiate the layoffs required. That is the most reasonable position, and yet the government is unwilling to do it. Why? Because they have a political agenda

[ Page 2503 ]

which is based on government by fear, repression, patronage and edict. They want to Tozerize the public service. They want it based on privilege and noblesse oblige. They have contempt for their own employees and they want to cam their political epaulettes on the backs of their employees. They are cowards.

I move that the motion be amended by leaving out the word "now" and adding the words "on this day six months hence."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The motion is in order.

The Chair recognizes the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), but must also advise the member that debate on a hoist motion is quite restrictive; it restricts the member to speaking to the principle of hoist. Order! Please don't interrupt the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, I don't think it's necessary for the Chair to anticipate debate and be abrupt, and I don't understand the necessity for interpreting standing rules before a member has said one word.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I said "order" because I heard other people speaking — the Leader of the Opposition — while I was speaking. That is unparliamentary.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understand that as well, but I'm up on a point of order and am suggesting that the Chair should not anticipate debate and interpret orders before a member has even spoken.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I certainly intend, in the few moments allotted to me, to list some reasons why I think the jovial member for Columbia River should reconsider this piece of legislation over the next 180 days and make some improvements, perhaps in consultation with groups outside the chamber — or even within the chamber, if he chooses — that are in the best interests of the taxpayers of British Columbia.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, there's no question.... I'm not going to go into the details of how we arrived at this situation, in the detailed and eloquent way of the first member for Victoria. The present and the future are terribly important to us in British Columbia at this time, especially as the people of the province attempt to work their way out of the depression that we're in, which was largely caused by New Right economic thinking around the world. I believe we cannot be too precipitous in moving innovative change in areas that are clearly untried, unproven and unexperimented with in other jurisdictions.

All of us in this chamber who are elected to public office have a duty and responsibility to the public not just to be adversaries in here, but to help to make the system work and a responsibility to be seen by the public as being prepared to consult and help to make the system work.

We all know that British Columbia has a rather delicate history of labour relations. This is further reason for asking the minister to go slowly on this particular bill. We have no desire to see any precipitous action by government that could upset a delicate balance either in the public sector or, by any sort of reflection, in the private sector as well. Further on in my remarks I'm going to expand on the reason for a few months' reconsideration of this rather historic legislation which the minister has proposed.

Mr. Speaker, I think it has been documented by a number of studies that the taxpayer has a general mistrust of politicians and government. As politicians we rate either just below or just above journalists as the people lowest in public esteem. All of us, regardless of whether or not we're on the treasury benches, have to try to overcome that public mistrust of politicians and people elected to public office.

[3:15]

A further reason for having a delay in this bill — I'm not going to read from it; I think that was done previously by people entering the debate here — is that it's legislation, as I read it, that quite clearly puts public sector workers who are in the employ of the provincial government at the lowest level of the three-tier system that the minister and the government want to have in British Columbia, which seems we will have if the government does not consider a delay in this legislation. Private sector workers, whether or not they're unionized, work on contract or are professionals working as consultants. Those areas are protected by the Labour Code and various other statutes and aspects of common law that have been laid down over the years. Public sector workers in Crown corporations, municipal governments, universities, hospitals and so on have fewer rights and privileges than the private sector workers under what has been proposed in this chamber. And now we have the 40,000 or so provincial government employees, who clearly are directly affected by Bill 2.

The minister, in moving second reading, did not give any adequate reasons why provincial sector workers should be considered less than private sector workers, which is further reason why we would hope the minister could delay action on this bill and provide.... Even if he doesn't want to provide us in this House with some answers to these questions, at least he could provide them to the general public, who after all are paying the bills, and who will be subject to any disruption in service. I hope that doesn't occur. Disruption in service isn't necessarily a strike or lockout in the public sector; it could simply be an inefficiency in the delivcry in services to the public, particularly those elements of our economy which are struggling hard to recover from this right-wing depression we've been going through — those segments of the private sector which depend on government services in order to get back on their feet and expand the economy of British Columbia. I really hope the minister takes into account those aspects when he's considering whether to rush ahead pell-mell, willy-nilly, or to stand back and take a second look, as W.A.C. Bennett used to do in cases of contentious legislation.

When we talk about collective agreements dealing with B.C. employees, we are not talking about one collective agreement reached a year ago, or about an agreement reached a few years before that. We are talking about a number of collective agreements usually reached without labour disruption, certainly no serious labour disruption. I don't recall any serious strike or lockout situation in the immediate provincial public service. Over the years those agreements were reached in good faith by people bargaining on both sides. That's why I'd like the minister to have a look at this. We're only asking for six months. He wants to change something that is a series of precedents and fine-tuning which have gone on over a

[ Page 2504 ]

period of years, even during the two decades that he has been in this chamber watching developments of this nature and of this great province.

Contrary to what the minister and apologists for the government have suggested in this House — and this is a further reason that we would ask for a reasonable delay in this legislation — provincial government employees have no legislative privilege that I know of. They have no special privileges enshrined in legislation. I personally see no reason why they should have special legislation at all, why they shouldn't simply be included along with all workers under one all-encompassing labour code in the province of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I may, hon. member, I am quickly coming to the conclusion that your arguments are not sufficiently narrow to be relevant in a hoist debate. I'd like to read to you, if I may, an extract from the twelfth edition of Sir Eskine May, page 283. In particular I'd ask you to note the following: "It is not regular to discuss the merits of a bill...upon a motion for its withdrawal or postponement, and debate must be strictly confined to the object of the motion." Further down that page: "Otherwise, the merits of a bill might be debated not only upon its several stages, but whenever its postponement is proposed." Clearly, you have a postponement amendment before the House. I am afraid that at this time I'm hearing your argument being developed along the lines of discussing the merits of the bill. I would caution and urge you to attempt to restrict your comments to the principle of a hoist: why you are advocating that this bill be delayed for six months.

MR. D'ARCY: For your direction, Mr. Speaker, I realize the hour is late — or early, as the case may be — but I have been paying strict attention throughout my remarks to list reasons why I believe the minister should delay this bill for a period of 180 days. If in modifying those reasons there is some appearance now and then that we are not dealing with that discussion of the rules, as you have just read, I would suggest it is a little coincidental. After all, in giving reasons why the government or the minister should reconsider, why he should indulge in consulting the process of his choice, on occasion one has to refer to the piece of legislation that the hoist motion refers to; otherwise the minister, if not myself, could perhaps lose the thread of the debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I certainly concur that somehow — with very infrequent occurrence — you're going to have to refer to the bill itself; however, if one was to allow you to list all the arguments that one may well hear on the main motion and merely put the prefix that it is another reason why the government should postpone, then clearly, in my opinion, you would be arguing the merits of the bill. As I say, merely adding a prefix is not getting you around that fact.

MR. D'ARCY: I will do my best to work within those limitations.

The thrust of the legislation, and why we want a reconsideration, is that we are going to see a further visitation of centralized authoritarian control within the minister's office. Recognizing that the government has a 49 percent mandate, we feel on this side of the House, particularly in view of the collective bargaining situation out there right now, that that is a further reason to perhaps consider a delay in this particular bill. We certainly do not want to do anything in this chamber which is going to have an aggravating effect on not only something which hopefully will not occur in the public sector, but we certainly do not want to have an aggravating effect on anything that could affect the private sector within this chamber. While one could argue that economic recovery in British Columbia is only indirectly affected by productivity in the public sector, I don't think there is anyone who would disagree that economic recovery in the province is directly affected by confidence and the ability of the private sector to function effectively. That's further reason why I feel very strongly that the minister should reconsider this bill, especially certain aspects of it. The province of B.C. is too important to be disturbed by partisan actions that we might take in this chamber. We would hope that in that form of reconsideration of this particular bill, the government would be taking steps to lead the province to economy recovery and not putting obstructions up for morale and the confidence of workers or management in the public sector and certainly not in the private sector. There may be a lot of investors and existing invested money in the province of B.C. that might be very carefully looking at the stability — or lack of it — in the public service as well as the effectiveness with which people do their jobs. Certainly if we can do anything in this House to reassure that element by adding to that stability, it would be advisable for the minister to reconsider this bill.

I contend that there are many aspects of the bill — and I take your instruction, Mr. Speaker; I won't refer specifically to them — which destabilize the public service as we have known it in this province. It destabilizes the public service's ability to serve industry and business. For instance, if the mineral section — which the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) was once the minister of — cannot deal directly and efficiently with the assayers and mineral people in the branch because of a lack of morale or because of a disruption in the public service, then we very quickly find that the development which could take place — the areas of new or expanded facilities in this area — could not get going the way they otherwise might.

The private sector also needs instant reaction from government employees in areas such as land titles registry, superintendents of brokers, registrar of companies and so on. Clearly, if the private sector is going to provide the business and job opportunities this province needs, especially over the six-month period suggested in this particular motion that we're debating at the present time, it is in the interests of the province that the minister and the government not do anything that could create inefficiencies, let alone even be construed out there as something which could increase the threat of a strike or lockout in the public service, or even a work-to-rule campaign. I'm not suggesting for a moment that the minister would ever think of moving in that direction. I'm simply suggesting that by moving too quickly on legislation of this gravity, he may well inadvertently be causing that kind of feeling out there in the private sector. It's something like justice. Not only must justice be done but it must appear to be done. Not only must there be confidence in the government's ability to deliver services in the government sector, but that confidence must be felt out there throughout the community of taxpayers at large.

[3:30]

A further reason for reconsideration of this bill is that there are sections which will involve regulations. Even

[ Page 2505 ]

though I fully concede the minister could change those regulations at any time, I think it would be tremendously useful for all the B.C. voting public if they had some detailed idea what regulations the minister was going to put forward. The free enterprise press — not only the free press, Mr. Speaker, but the free enterprise press — have asked constantly ever since this legislation was tabled back in July.... I note, Mr. Speaker, that until today it has never been called for debate before the House. Well, what was today — it's now tomorrow.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Yes, okay, it is still today.

It has never been called for debate for almost three months. The fact is that many people outside the House have constantly asked for consultation and reconsideration. We would have hoped that over the last 90 days the minister would have done that. He doesn't appear to have moved, at least not to the extent that many people would like — many people not even affected by the legislation, who have only a sympathetic interest, an arm's-length interest, in this particular piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, that's further reason why we would hope that the minister could explain exactly where he and his government colleagues wish to go with this particular bill.

We of course appreciate that the situation is a bit difficult as far as the resources available to the treasury are concerned, and we're not suggesting that the government change its hard-nosed approach. They certainly face a difficult situation, as do employers in the private sector. We don't find — and this is further reason for a request for delay — the private sector employers in major industry, who after all are subject to market conditions.... In other words, if they're shut down by strike or lockout, they can lose customers, confidence can be lost in them by international markets and so on. We don't suffer quite those consequences of losing customers — perhaps some liquor customers to Washington state or Alberta. But if the provincial civil service was shut down, I don't think the province would lose too many customers directly, because the provincial government is not in the business of producing goods and services for export markets. The private sector employees are in a much stronger position to negotiate wages and benefits than the provincial government employees are, and that exists not only in today's difficult climate but certainly even more so in a strong economy. That is a further reason that we would ask the government to reconsider, because the employees that they seek to deal with through this piece of legislation do not have the economic clout that workers in the mining, forest or manufacturing industries do with their employers.

We feel that when the government is in a preferred position as an employer to begin with, if it'simply can't negotiate under normal circumstances in a situation that the private sector has, they are to some degree admitting defeat and weakness. We feel, once again, that it reflects on the national and international opinion of British Columbia. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, you would agree that we all take pride in our province, in our public service, and, indeed, in all aspects of the economy of British Columbia.

To use an old cliché, there's no reason why the minister cannot use consultation over the next few months, and perhaps get what he seeks that way. After all, he is the minister and clearly the government must govern. Surely he can use consultation in good faith over the next few months, rather than using a sledgehammer, at a time when — as I know from the press — there is a most delicate labour-management situation in the provincial service.

We on this side of the House, and I believe government members too, want to move forward in positive ways. We know that the private sector has been able to take advantage of the Labour Code, imperfect as it may be in some ways. They say the system seems to work fairly well, and we want to give the government some time under this amendment to attempt to make the Labour Code work on their own behalf with their employees in the public service.

I know you're not from the city of Vancouver, Mr. Speaker. If you don't live in your own riding, don't tell us in here; we might use it out there.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: All right, greater Vancouver, but I'm speaking of the city of Vancouver just for a moment. The city of Vancouver has its own charter, and I've never been able to understand why it should have special privileges or responsibilities. I think the city of Vancouver should be under the Municipal Act, along with every other municipality in this province. In the same way, I don't understand why the provincial government, whether it be the New Democrat government of the early seventies or the Socred government, needs a special act dealing with provincial government employees or public sector employees with B.C. Hydro or the Assessment Authority, or anybody else. The fact is — and this is why we want a further reconsideration — the employees, workers and contractors working in this province should have a uniform Labour Code, or whatever you want to call labour legislation, Employment Standards Act or whatever. They should all be subject to and have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities under one universal bill.

The minister, in discussing this legislation, may well argue that provincial employees have, or will have, better advantages under the legislation here. But I would suggest that he should reconsider this legislation simply because it makes provincial employees different. I would contend that it makes them not second-class but third-class citizens in the province of British Columbia. Given that being as it is, I think that if the minister does not reconsider this bill, and rushes it through the House — and in the course of time it is certainly going to pass this Legislature, unless he and his government colleagues have a change of heart.... What we see again is that the government, having failed to take advantage of the provisions of the Labour Code which Cominco, Macmillan Bloedel, CPR, the Royal Bank and all of the other private employers have to live under in this province, seem to be taking it out on their employees, who in most cases are dedicated servants of the government and the taxpayers of British Columbia.

We simply ask that the government, rather than demonstrate an inability to cope in the same way that the private sector does, say: "From this day or this night on we are prepared to deal with the same kind of collective bargaining milieu, the same kind of common law, the same kind of court and Labour Relations Board situation we expect all other employers in the province to deal with." Why should the government take unto itself special privilege in dealing with its employees? Why should it give special privilege to employees? Why should it have one set of rules for themselves,

[ Page 2506 ]

in dealing with their employees, and expect other people to follow a different set of rules?

We have, thank goodness, in this chamber over the last few days shown some respect for orderly debate and standing orders. I believe that given a chance to reconsider this bill, we could perhaps show the public in this province that the government has an honest and sincere desire to increase productivity and efficiency within the public service and at the same time maintain morale and innovation and that feeling of esprit de corps which once was in the public service. I said that I wasn't going to deal at great length with the past, but I just want to digress a minute in discussing a delay on this bill. At one time in this province, when there was no collective bargaining and no contractual provisions, nonetheless there was in certain aspects of the provincial civil service — notably the Forest Service, Highways, what is now the Environment ministry, game wardens, parks and so on — a fine esprit de corps. People really believed in what they were doing. I would like the government to perhaps reconsider the situation which we have got ourselves into now in this province, either accidentally or on purpose, and see what they can do to raise that morale and innovative spirit which once was rife within the provincial service, and try to Put it back so that we can have people who believe in the resources of this province and in serving the public of this province.

A further reason for delay, and why we want the government to reconsider this particular bill, is, once again....

I'm not good at reading from philosophical tomes, but a number of technical and other studies have been done showing that the attitudes and positions of management and workers alike kind of ossify if they don't have the opportunity to move laterally or to move up, if they're not rewarded for innovation. If they don't, if they aren't, they have a feeling that: "Gee, if you make any waves at all you're likely to be transferred to some place you don't particularly want to go, if not lose your job completely." I think there has to be a little bit of security, but not to protect incompetence or featherbedding. I think that the government has to move strongly and wilfully to enforce its own management rights, but certainly not to frighten people.

I want to deal for a further moment in why I think the minister himself should give good consideration to delay here. He spoke in his opening remarks — and I know I'm not supposed to refer to second reading — about the erosion of management prerogatives over a period of time. If there has been any erosion of management prerogatives, I would like to give the minister time to recover those through the collective bargaining process. If there were any losses there, they weren't due to legislative action, strikes or economic pressure, and they certainly weren't due to public opinion, because we know public opinion does not like strikes in any level of the public service. I would like the minister to have the opportunity to do what any other employer would have to do when they feel they have lost, to use his words, management prerogatives; and that is, simply, to go out and recover those management prerogatives in the same way that anybody else would have to make those efforts.

We on this side of the House are certainly not suggesting that there should be any sort of doom and gloom in this aspect. If other bargaining parties seeking collective agreements to improve management's position or to allow for flexibility in difficult times can accomplish these things, I see no reason why the minister or people appointed by him — presumably he has the resources to hire the best if necessary — cannot go out and recover those things which he says he has bargained away. Let's remember, Mr. Speaker, that over the last 31 years he and his party have been in office for 28 of those years. So the situation that he decries has not been zapped in there, and I feel that if other people can do it over the next few months, and have done over the last few months, he should be able to accomplish the same thing with a little bit of effort and some understanding and appreciation of the difficulties that people face in the collective bargaining situation, particularly when the employees that he would be dealing with in that consultative process over the next few months do not — and I want to repeat this: do not — have the bargaining power that, say, employees have in the mining or the forest industry or in the financial community or in any area where they literally cannot afford a shutdown. In fact, one could argue — I hope nobody does — that the government could save money by having a shutdown of various parts of the civil service.

We want to note, in asking for a further reconsideration, that the government members, I believe — I may be wrong, but I don't believe so, apart from the minister himself — have not got up and defended this bill. They have not given reasons why the minister should not take a few months to reconsider this. I certainly do not want to see any government members being accused of being lazy or non-attentive or afraid to discuss this rather important piece of legislation. Once again, we want to give the minister, and members who might want to speak in support of the minister, some time to salvage some support and confidence that they may have.

[3:45]

I want to talk a bit about the ability of the government and the private sector to recruit, shall we say, professionals and rather important people into the various services. That's a further reason why I think the minister should reconsider what he's doing. One may argue that it's easy to hire truck drivers since there are lots of them out there, and there may or may not be lots of computer programmers, but even without this legislation there were some important government positions that were a long time being filled. I think the minister, who has been Provincial Secretary for some time, will know that. I'm not talking about those positions which the government has not seen fit to post in an effort to downsize the civil service, that came open through attrition. I'm talking about positions which the government did see fit to post, and yet a period of many months and occasionally a year or so went by without even a single qualified applicant coming forward to apply for those jobs, even though they were probably posted all over North America. That's a further reason why the minister should reconsider. If he puts this kind of lack of job security, of inability to bargain under the normal provisions that affect every other worker — even non-unionized workers, even professionals who bargain for their services in a non-unionized context — if he puts further obstacles in their way, we may find more and more extremely important professional positions, directly serving the public.... Even if the government doesn't wish them to be open, they will remain open, because when employees are unhappy with their employer, the first people to go are the best people; the first people to go are the best qualified people, the ones most capable of creating efficiencies in the workplace. I would like the minister to reconsider this bill on that basis as well. There are some extremely highly technical and professional positions in government which are very difficult to fill even in the best of times — and these, clearly, in terms of the employee's

[ Page 2507 ]

view of government, are not the best of times, Mr. Speaker; I hope you would agree with that.

I'm not going to be too much longer on this motion to have the minister consider Bill 2 before he moves precipitously. I want to talk again about how we do not really want the minister to have special things that he is going to use in making the public service either more subservient or more privileged, as the case may be, than the private sector. In his remarks he said that the government must be tough and must meet various challenges and so forth. I want to give the minister an opportunity....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm afraid you are once again beginning to digress well beyond the bounds of the hoist resolution, and, particularly since you have a very few moments left, I would urge you to return to the strict principle of the hoist, not second reading.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, the only time that time goes faster is when the alarm clock goes off to wake me up.

I know that the minister has been following this closely in one of his most attentive positions that I've ever seen him take. I know he's going to consider these remarks. Mr. Speaker, I want to let you know how I appreciate the fact that you have given me the opportunity to list reasons why we think the minister should reconsider all aspects of this bill before he pushes ahead with it. To give him further opportunity, and because the hour is so late, I would move that the House do now adjourn.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, we're in the matter of a hoist motion, and the member from Rossland-Trail is the first speaker. I consider that his movement of adjournment is an abuse of the privilege of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I rule on that, would the member from Rossland-Trail care to comment on why it would be in order.

MR. D'ARCY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The standing orders of the House, which the minister voted on, show an adjournment today — or yesterday — of 6 o'clock. Further, Mr. Speaker, you perhaps would have knowledge, by consulting with Hansard, that there has not been an adjournment motion put to this chamber, either of debate or of the House, for a substantial number of hours. As I say, 6 o'clock p.m. yesterday is nearly ten hours ago. Therefore, in keeping with Speaker Davidson's ruling of a few days ago, I believe not only is this motion in order, but it is totally and completely in order. I can't imagine when it would be more in order, in fact.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I not having made a ruling, there's no time for a challenge, but on the same point of order the Chair recognizes....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We only can handle one point of order at a time, and only one member. The Chair recognizes the member for North Island.

MR. GABELMANN: On that same point of order, I just want to reiterate that no motions to adjourn either the debate or the House have been put either during the debate on the hoist motion or on the debate on the main motion earlier through this evening going back a considerable number of hours, right back to the time we began the debate at 8 o'clock. Because of that, a motion of this kind is in order and would have been in order some time ago as well.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On the point of order, I think we have to take into consideration that we're freshly into an amendment that recently, just a few minutes ago, has been put by the opposition. Now the opposition are telling the House very clearly that they're not prepared to debate their amendment. I think that's ridiculous. They either want to debate the amendment or they don't. If they don't want to debate the amendment, don't put the amendment forward.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the same point of order, the Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, what is before the House is a motion that the House do now adjourn. That is not debatable.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quite clearly the motion to adjourn is not debatable. A point of order is certainly in order. I hear another member rising on the point of order. The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I rise to support the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. The House is falling into a practice of debating, to a longer and greater extent, not only adjournment motions but points of order. Any time a point of order is raised there seems to be a debate that.... Yes, it's usually in defence of one side or the other. Mr. Speaker, I would like you to know that under standing order 38 you're not obliged to accept any of these.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quite frankly, I'm not sure of the significance of standing order 38, but referring to standing order 44, the Chair is of the opinion that the resolution to adjourn, coming on the heels of a hoist motion, is deleterious and is not in order.

MR. BARRETT: Is that your ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have suggested that it is my explanation of the application....

MR. BARRETT: That's correct. So you're making a ruling on it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you care to hear what I'm going to say, hon. member?

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What I have stated is my application of the standing order, which of course governs this House, and in the capacity of Speaker I have given that explanation of the application of that standing order.

The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, Are you making a ruling on a standing order?

[ Page 2508 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I thought that I had enunciated my words carefully and clearly. I'm surprised you didn't hear it as such.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if you're instructing the House, it has to be through a ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not correct, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, is that a ruling? Is that a ruling that it's not correct?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you be kind enough to take your place?

MR. BARRETT: No, because I'm asking you: is that a ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did you rise on a point of order?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I'm on a point of order. Is that a ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Have you made the point of order?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I'm asking if you're ruling that you have the right to rule without a ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Having made the point of order, I'd advise that you take your seat.

MR. BARRETT: No, I want a ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you will get it once....

Well, you won't get a ruling; you'll get my reaction to your point of order once you've taken your seat. Now that you've done that, I'm pleased to reiterate that what I have just done is explain to the House the application of the House's standing order. In particular....

MR. BARRETT: Thank you. Is that a ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not a ruling.

MR. BARRETT: Then I challenge that. You have no right to make rulings on that basis. Don't give us that stuff, for goodness' sake. Under standing orders you make a ruling or you don't make a ruling. You can't sit up there....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Sit down!

MR. BARRETT: Oh, don't give us that stuff. Call in a Clerk.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, this matter has been adjudicated by the Speaker numerous times in the past few days.

MR. BARRETT: Are you applying the Speaker's ruling? Are you?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am referring to the fact that the application of....

MR. BARRETT: Are you applying a Speaker's ruling? Yes or no?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I do not appreciate having interjections when I'm answering a question that you have correctly put.

MR. BARRETT: Are you applying a Speaker's ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you heard me correctly, I am applying a consistent application of standing order 44.

MR. BARRETT: Is that your ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is the Speaker's application of a standing order of this House.

MR. BARRETT: Is a Speaker's application a ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it is not.

MR. BARRETT: Then I challenge the Speaker's application.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point has been made and the Chair will now entertain....

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Speaker's application.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you do not have the right.

MR. BARRETT: Under what standing order do I not have the right?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You tell me under what standing order you have the right to challenge the Speaker's application of a standing order.

MR. BARRETT: Would you tell me what standing order says a Speaker's application specifically? Will you tell me, as a member of the House, the exact standing order that you're making the application on?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would appreciate all members taking their seats while I respond to the Leader of the Opposition.

Standing order 9 very clearly states that "Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order.... In explaining a point of order or practice, he shall state the standing order or authority applicable to the case...."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Read the whole thing.

MR. BARRETT: "...subject to an appeal to the House." There it is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Where am I?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Standing order 9. "Without debate."

[ Page 2509 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In its entirety, in case some of the members don't have it before them: "Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order subject to an appeal to the House, without debate. In explaining a point of order or practice he shall state the standing order or authority applicable to the case." Referring to standing order 44, the Speaker — and now I will paraphrase — "the Speaker, when of the opinion that a motion for adjournment is an abuse of the rules and privileges of the House, may forthwith put the question thereupon from the Chair or may decline to propose the question to the House."

[4:00]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, you are declining to put the question. Is that correct?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is correct.

MR. BARRETT: And I challenge that ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was not a ruling. It has not been a ruling in the past, and it is not a ruling right now.

MR. BARRETT: It is so. It's a decision. Mr. Speaker, may I ask you politely to confer with the Clerk? Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would be pleased to confer with the Clerk if it would assist you. One moment, please.

Hon. members, after consulting with the Clerk the position of the Chair remains as it has been stated. On the same point of order, the Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, would you instruct me as to what standing order you're making a ruling under.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Firstly, hon. member, I'm not making a ruling.

MR. BARRETT: You're not making a ruling? Then how does the House proceed without a ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is very simple, hon. member. I intend to state the position once more just in case you didn't quite hear all the words I used the first time. Very simply, standing order 44 provides that the Speaker may decline to propose a question if he is of the opinion the question before the House is an abuse of the rules of this House. I stated that it was my opinion that it was an abuse insofar as the speaker who put forth that adjournment motion was the first and only speaker on the hoist motion. Now that is the application of standing order 44.

MR. BARRETT: That is the application of standing order 44? I challenge that application.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That application is not open to challenge.

MR. BARRETT: The application is not open to challenge. That's your ruling. Is that correct?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I may be direct, hon. member, you have not been recognized on the floor.

MR. BARRETT: I'm on a point of order now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are rising on a point of order?

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Now you have made a decision under standing order 44 not to put the question. Is that correct?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker has advised the House on an application of standing order 44. The adjournment motion is not going to be put to the House.

MR. BARRETT: Are you using standing order 44 to make that application?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's exactly what I have said.

MR. BARRETT: That is your ruling to use standing order 44. Is that right?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's not a ruling; it's an opinion.

MR. BARRETT: No, no. You can't have an opinion on standing orders. Now is it...?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: May we have order in here, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May we have order in the House. I believe that....

MR. BARRETT: When the Chair cites a standing order....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would suggest that I have been patient and I have been clear...

MR. BARRETT: So have I.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: ...in explaining to you and the House the application of the standing order.

MR. BARRETT: You are invoking standing order 44. Is that correct?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am certainly applying a standing order of this House.

MR. BARRETT: You're applying a standing order. Therefore that is a decision, and I challenge that ruling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: It's not a ruling.

MR. BARRETT: It is! You can't apply a standing order without a decision. How else can we have order?

[ Page 2510 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the application has been made. The adjournment motion will not be put to the House. I now ask you to take your place in your chair.

MR. BARRETT: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, I would ask consultation again with the Clerk. When you state a standing order there has to be a decision and a ruling related to a standing order for the previous decision.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to your request, I ask for one moment to consult with the Clerk.

Hon. member, I believe that the Leader of the Opposition had put a question to the Speaker. Once again, after consulting with the Clerk, the position of the Speaker is affirmed. If the Leader of the Opposition is pressing the issue in hope of having the Chair make a ruling, he is not going to succeed. If the Leader of the Opposition is intent on pushing the matter to force the Chair to invoke standing order 20, then surely that's the course that he could choose.

MR. HOWARD: The final authority — Bill's sledgehammer. The government's got you in their pocket.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, standing order....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Would the member for Skeena please withdraw that last remark.

MR. HOWARD: What was that, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The remark that the government has the Speaker in its pocket.

MR. HOWARD: Did those words slip from my lips?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: They were distinctly heard by the Speaker, and I request you to withdraw them.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, well, if they were heard by the Speaker, then that's an inadvertence.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm just going to ask for an unequivocal withdrawal.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do whatever you tell me to do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm asking for an unequivocal withdrawal.

MR. HOWARD: I do whatever you tell me to do. You've told me to do something. I do it. Satisfied?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you acceding to the fact that you have made an unequivocal withdrawal? Hon. member, would you please use the words "I withdraw" without equivocation?

MR. BARRETT: Is that your ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You do not have the floor.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you kindly withdraw?

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, what...?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: "I withdraw" are the words that I request.

MR. HOWARD: I withdraw are the words that I request.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. HOWARD: I repeated what you said, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, you be clear in what you're doing and cite the standing order if you're deciding questions of order in this House with respect to me. Mr. Speaker, you operate under standing order 9 that says you shall decide and cite the standing order that you're talking about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Very clearly then, in case I have misled you on the words that you are required to withdraw, would you please withdraw unequivocally?

MR. HOWARD: I will withdraw unequivocally.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. HOWARD: Do you know what that means?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition....

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise on standing order 9, which is essential to this House to have impartial order. I read standing order 9, and I bring it to your attention: "Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the House without debate." Mr. Speaker, you must decide a question of order. A decision must be based on a standing order. Now whatever that standing order is, under standing order 9 a member has the right to ask the House to agree or disagree under standing order 9 — whatever standing order exists. Otherwise the Chair, through some person, could be arbitrarily abused and the rules would be bypassed. So I ask, Mr. Speaker — not an argument on your choice, as the choice is yours, Mr. Speaker — the right of a member to question that choice by way of challenge, which is guaranteed under standing order 9.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. It's clear.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, standing order 9 clearly applies to rulings. The Speaker has not made a ruling. The Speaker has explained an application of a standing order.

[4:15]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if the Chair has not made a ruling, I want to know under what standing order you have not made a ruling.

[ Page 2511 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, I have made the explanation for the last time.

MR. BARRETT: Under what standing order, sir?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I consider your actions to be pressing me into application of standing order 20.

MR. BARRETT: Now wait a minute. I need to know the standing order. Are you applying standing order 20?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have explained to you very carefully. At your request, on two separate occasions I have consulted with the Clerk, and on two separate occasions — in fact, this would now be a fourth...

MR. BARRETT: What standing order? Please tell me the standing order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: ...occasion to confirm to you and the House that this is an application of standing order 44.

MR. BARRETT: All right. Is that your ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is the application.

MR. BARRETT: There has to be a ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am now ordering...

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be thrown out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: ...you to take your seat.

MR. BARRETT: I am asking you to apply standing order 9 to the other ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I am now ordering....

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, please, do not hector or badger a member. Standing orders apply to this House. I'm asking under what standing order you're making that application. I have a right to do that, please. I ask you to take another few minutes and consult with the Clerk again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: For the last time, hon. member, I have consulted the Clerk. The Chair's application of the standing order remains as has been stated innumerable times, and that concludes the matter.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, are you ordering me to step down?

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are abusing the decorum of this House. I would order you to remain in your seat and to allow the matters of this House to continue.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, under what standing order are you ordering me to sit?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're harassing the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: No, no. I'm not harassing. I'm asking instruction.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 20.

MR. BARRETT: Is that your ruling?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it's not a ruling.

MR. BARRETT: Well, he has to give me a ruling to sit down.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you persist any further, I will not only order you to remain seated; pursuant to standing order 20, I will take the next necessary course of action.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for advising me, as a member. What you're saying is that you're going to invoke standing order 20. That's a threat to the member, or a caution to the member — whichever way....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. BARRETT: I ask you: is that your ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I order....

MR. BARRETT: Well, you can't order me to get out unless you make a ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I order you to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of this day's sitting.

MR. BARRETT: Now wait a minute. Just a minute. When I ask you, please.... I challenge your ruling for me to withdraw. I challenge your right to do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is my understanding that it is not challengeable.

MR. BARRETT: Just a minute.

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, there's not a moment for an intervening point of order. The Chair has ordered a member....

MR. HOWARD: I rose on a point of order earlier, and Your Honour didn't recognize me.

[ Page 2512 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have not recognized you.

MR. HOWARD: But I rose on a point of order, and Your Honour failed to recognize me. How can one proceed in an orderly way in this House if the Chair refuses to recognize points of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you take your seat you will be given an opportunity when the matter before the House is concluded.

MR. HOWARD: That's the point of order I'm rising on, Mr. Speaker. That was the point of order I rose on earlier, and Your Honour did not see me. You're not going to recognize my point of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not until the matter before the House is concluded.

MR. HOWARD: But once it's concluded the point of order disappears. Your Honour is preventing a very valid point of order from being raised by refusing to permit it to be raised at the appropriate time. After the event is too late.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The request for a point of order cannot be entertained insofar as the Chair has ordered a member of this House, in particular the Leader of the Opposition, to withdraw immediately from this House.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order I raised was made before that event took place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not recognized you, hon. member...

MR. HOWARD: It's obvious that you didn't recognize me on the point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: ...and I shall not recognize you until the matter with....

MR. HOWARD: I rose on a point of order earlier, Mr. Speaker....

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition perhaps misunderstood.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To give you the opportunity to hear the ruling very clearly, you have been ordered to withdraw....

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the Leader of the Opposition prepared to listen to the order of the Chair and leave the House as directed?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sergeant-at-Arms, would you please come forward?

Leader of the Opposition, you've been requested to withdraw immediately from the House for the balance of this day's sitting, pursuant to standing order 20.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is the order of the Chair.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition, I am sure, is fully aware of the very grave consequences if he compels me to direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to assist him from the House. The Chair has made a very clear ruling.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The ruling is not challengeable.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, you are fully cognizant of the consequences of....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am standing. The Chair is standing, hon. member. The Chair is standing. I have merely asked whether or not you are fully cognizant and have thought through the grave consequences of having the Sergeant-at-Arms directed to assist you from the chamber.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is clearly a rhetorical question. You have been....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, order! Hon. member, you have been directed, pursuant to standing order 20. That in itself is a grave thing to have been pronounced by this Chair. But to further ask that this Chair has to have the Sergeant-at-Arms assist you to leave the chamber.... That is something that I do not wish to have to do.

I'm sorry, there is no response. The alternatives are one of two.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am not going to postpone this any further. Sergeant-at-Arms, would you please assist the hon. Leader of the Opposition from this House.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sergeant-at-Arms, would you please assist the hon. Leader of the Opposition....

Interjection.

[ Page 2513 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I trust that in the interlude while the Speaker was meeting with the table you have given the matter further thought. Clearly the moment is appropriate for you to respect the honour and decorum of this House, as it has been already advised pursuant to....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you please take your seat? Hon. member, one of the reasons that I have repeatedly taken the trouble to consult with the Clerk is to ensure that I have understood the significance of standing order 20 and the fact that once the order has been made for you to withdraw from the House, that order is not appealable. Consequently, I once again implore you to consider the consequences of the Chair being compelled to have the Sergeant-at-Arms assist you from the House. Having directed you to remove yourself from the House, I once again urge you to take that direction.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. member, I have taken great pains and I would suggest that you have had plenty of opportunity to fully understand the consequences of...

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: ...to have the Sergeant-at arms remove you....

[4:30]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you are going to compel the Chair to make that order....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I reluctantly direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to remove you from this chamber.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sergeant-at-Arms, remove the hon. Leader of the Opposition from this chamber.

[Interruption. ]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 11, I would move that this House express the opinion that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) not be permitted to occupy the Chair at any time during this parliament.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the motion attempted to be put forward is one that requires notice. As such it is not in order and cannot be entertained.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, you are ruling a motion relating to your own conduct to be out of order?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion you attempted to put forth, hon. member, is ruled out of order.

MR. HOWARD: Then I appeal that decision.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question has been put.

MR. HOWARD: We need to have a division on that. And I hope you're not in the chair to conduct the vote, either. Be down there in your seat and vote.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The motion before us is that this House express the opinion that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam not be permitted to occupy the Chair at any time.

MR. HOWARD: You've got the right motion, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on the question which was ruled out of order, the question having been referred, would those who support the ruling of the Chair please stand.

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 12

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

[4:45]

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we had a motion before the House that the House do now adjourn. The Speaker that was in the Chair ruled that it was not appropriate to put the question at the time. Now I recall that within the last two weeks — I don't know the exact day — Your Honour made a statement, rather than a ruling, regarding the acceptability of motions to adjourn either the House or the debate. I don't have the statement in front of me, Mr. Speaker, but I'm sure you will recall it. You made reference, I believe, to a reasonable interval between motions, if the House had indeed turned down a previous one. The most recent motion to adjourn either debate or the House that had been put was at 6

[ Page 2514 ]

o'clock last night, which is nearly 11 hours ago. No such motion has been put in the interim, either defeated or accepted by the House. The grounds that Mr. Speaker at the time gave for refusing the motion were that he didn't feel it was appropriate for the line of business that was being conducted in the House at the moment. Mr. Speaker, I recall no reference in your statement as to whether adjournment motions were or were not appropriate due to estimates being discussed or the House being in committee or debate on a bill or a motion or whatever, and so on this point of order I would ask you to reconsider that ruling made earlier by Mr. Speaker in light of a statement of interpretation of the rules which you issued within the past two weeks.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair will undertake that review.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, it would be fine to undertake a review. That, in itself, I think, is a rebuke against the person who just immediately occupied the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The Chair recognized the member and asked the member on what purpose he sought the floor on the understanding that it was a point of order. Hon. member, to gain the floor for a point of order for the purpose of attempting to rebuke any member of the House would not be in order. If the member has a point of order....

MR. HOWARD: Yes, that's what I'm doing. I wasn't seeking to rebuke anybody. I was simply saying that Your Honour's comment just a moment ago to the member for Rossland-Trail that you would undertake a review of the question, in light of what has just occurred, is in itself a rebuke against the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam for not being flexible enough under standing order 44, and that's the kind of review that I think is necessary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. At this time the member is reflecting upon the Chair, and that is not permitted. Now the point of order the member has...?

MR. HOWARD: No, I'm not reflecting upon the Chair, Mr. Speaker. I just thought something else was happening, that was all.

The point to raise under standing order 44 is that it lends itself to abuse, especially when a decision is made under that standing order not to put the question simply for the purpose of refusing an appeal of that decision so they wouldn't wake up the Premier at 4 o'clock in the morning. That's the abuse that took place here. That's the type of abuse that takes place.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, hon. member.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Skeena seeks the floor.

MR. HOWARD: What I'm seeking to draw Your Honour's attention to is this.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. HOWARD: If Mr. Speaker would talk about Mr. Speaker, and not Chairman of the committee, because that's a separate.... "If Mr. Speaker shall be of the opinion that a motion for the adjournment of the House, or of the debate, is an abuse of the rules and privileges, he may forthwith either put the question or decline." But he has to come to a conclusion; he has to be of the opinion that a certain thing has occurred.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Your point of order is...?

MR. HOWARD: Based upon whatever that opinion might be, then has one of two courses of action under there. But I submit that what is permitted is a gross abuse — a potentially gross abuse — by the Chair, under this particular standing order, not when the decision is made, not when the opinion is held by the Chair that a certain thing exists, but on the subsequent decision of the Chair to say that that opinion is unappealable. That's the abuse that is permitted to creep in under this particular standing order. Mr. Speaker, so long as that is continued to be permitted, you are going to have chaos in this chamber. We've just seen an example of a foolish, stupid decision made.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The hon. member is well aware that comments of that sort are not acceptable. Not only that, hon. member, they reflect upon the decision of the House that has already been executed.

Hon. members, the member for Skeena, in quoting his point of order, has indicated to the Chair his personal dissatisfaction with standing order 44. That being the case, hon. member — and it may be the case that many members have dissatisfaction with rules of the House — that is not for the Chair to determine. If it is the will of the House to adjust the rules of the House, then that itself is for a determination by this House. It is not a determination flexible for the Chair to make a decision. It is one that the House itself must make. The Chair is bound to adhere to the rules that are before us.

The member for Skeena seeks the floor.

MR. HOWARD: We're involved here not with whether I'm unhappy with what standing order 44 says, or anything else. We're involved here, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. At this time I must ask the hon. member what is the point of order he wishes to raise.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order relates to standing order 11. We're involved here, Mr. Speaker, in the high office of Mr. Speaker. We're involved here with the suspicion —

[ Page 2515 ]

especially in view of what the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) did with that memorandum, and what he said out in the corridor....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please! I instruct the member to discontinue this particular line of argument. It has nothing to do with a point of order. It is reflecting upon previous incidents of this House that are already under discussion. Hon. members, we must adhere to the rules of the House.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I have advised the member that the course of action he is proceeding on is not a point of order. In fact, hon. member, it is debate and reflects on previous actions of this House. Unless the member has a new point of order, then I will have no alternative but to ask the member to take his place and we shall continue on with the debate at hand.

The member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: Standing order 11 says — and what I'm getting at is something very fundamental in terms of democracy in this chamber, Mr. Speaker. Whenever Mr. Speaker finds it necessary to leave the chair during any part of the sittings on any day, he may call upon the Deputy Speaker. Okay, understandable. The House determines....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's your point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. minister.

MR. HOWARD: Whatever it is, the Minister of Industry would never be able to understand it anyway.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You have never made one yet, in all the years you have been in office.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker may call upon any member of the House to take the chair and act as Speaker. The process of doing that by a revolving roster system which permits the selection of members of this chamber with a particular hardline partisan view demeans the office of the Speaker.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member, I will advise the member for the final time that the Chair will not...

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

...listen to an argument the basis of which is a reflection upon the Chair. Hon. member, those are the rules. The member is very familiar with those rules; if he cannot advance an argument without breaking the rules, then he simply cannot be in a position to advance the argument. If you have a point to make under standing order 11, just make the point and we shall address it accordingly.

MR. HOWARD: The point is that that standing order puts Mr. Speaker in a terrible position, especially when the government decides it is going to sit hour after hour after hour. Obviously Mr. Speaker cannot stay in the chair all the time. Obviously he can't, and obviously the Deputy Speaker can't, and those are officers chosen by this House. It affords Mr. Speaker the opportunity of going to other members and asking them to take the chair, and that's where the problem arises. That's why the motion I attempted to move a moment ago, saying that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks)...

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, hon. member!

MR. HOWARD: ...should never be permitted to hold the Chair in this chamber.... And neither should the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), for what he did the other day.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. At this time I instruct the member to take his place. We will continue with debate.

[5:00]

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat. I

MR. SPEAKER: The point of order, hon. members, is not a point of order. It is merely an attempt at debate, and I instruct the member to take his place. We could start with standing order 20, hon. member. I have instructed the member to take his place.

Hon. members, the member for Skeena has asked the Chair to quote its specific reference for the instruction that the member take his chair. In so doing, the Chair pointed out the consequences of the action of not following the instructions of the Chair; that would be contained in section 20. Hon. members, the basic premise is in fact in itself so basic — that the instructions of the Chair must be adhered to — that it is not specifically contained in our own standing orders, but is a basic rule of all parliaments. Hon. members, I have asked the member for Skeena to take his place, and if failing to do that, then I would have no alternative but to proceed with standing order 20, which I am sure is neither the will of the member nor the will of the Chair.

On that, hon. members, I would ask that we continue on the debate which is before us.

MR. HOWARD: I want to approach this very carefully. The point of order is a simple one. Mr. Speaker asked me to take my seat, pursuant, Mr. Speaker said, to standing order 20. Okay? That was what Mr. Speaker said. He wasn't drawing my attention to any consequences; he was just saying: "Take your seat under standing order 20." I challenged the authority of that decision under standing order 20.

Now we get back a bit in time, Mr. Speaker, to exactly the self-same preliminary, earlier, when the person who held the Chair made the same decision that the Leader of the Opposition sit down under standing order 20. I sought to rise on a point of order and the Chair at that time refused to recognize me — to raise a point of order under that — and look at the terrible consequences that arose because of a stupid decision.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

[ Page 2516 ]

MR. SPEAKER: It is clear to the Chair that the member for Skeena wishes to have standing order 20 enforced, and I so do. Under standing order 20, I shall name the member unless he is prepared to take his seat and allow us to proceed with the business of the House. Hon. members, this is a very serious undertaking on the part of the Chair, one which again requires the Chair to ask — more or less implore — the member to abide by the rules of this House, so that the Chair does not have to enforce standing order 20. But if that is the case and if it is the wish of the member, the Chair will reluctantly oblige. I hope, hon. members, that that will either conclude the matter or bring it to the point of our next step.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly obey your order to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

MRS. WALLACE: Earlier the member for Rossland Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) raised a point of order relative to a motion that he had moved for the adjournment of the House, which was really the motion that began this horrendous disorder in the House. You, Mr. Speaker, have said that you will take this under advisement. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you would be prepared to call a short recess so you can make a decision upon that motion before proceeding any further, because the decision as to whether or not we should vote upon that particular motion has every bearing on what we are going to be doing within the next few minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The decision of the Chair is that a recess will not be taken. We will try to continue the business of the people, and take recesses when this could be done at a future time.... Certainly in this particular case the Chair undertook to review the matter as raised by the member for Rossland-Trail. That was the single undertaking of the Chair, and the Chair will so do.

MR. GABELMANN: I rise under standing orders 34 and 9. Standing order 34 says a motion to adjourn shall always be in order, and in respect of the motion made by the member for Rossland-Trail, the qualifications that exist in standing order 34 don't apply. Standing order 9 indicates that Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order. If, under standing order 34, or because of another section of the rules, the Speaker decides to not allow the motion because it is not in order, then I submit that the Speaker must then go to standing order 9: "Mr. Speaker...shall decide questions of order...." He may have decided that standing order 34 doesn't apply, and I can understand circumstances where that may occur, although I don't think that was the case this time. But when he does make that order, it is "subject to an appeal to the House without debate." If the Speaker is going to order that the motion made by the member for Rossland-Trail cannot now be put, despite 34, then 9 applies and there can be an appeal to the House.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully suggest that we are revisiting a decision which has already been made, but with your indulgence sir.... We are confusing, according to the submission from the member for North Island, standing order 9, which talks about decisions of the Speaker, and standing order 44 which talks about opinions of the Speaker. A decision of the Chair is subject to challenge, as I understand the rules, to the House. The House can adjudge a decision of a Speaker. A decision of a Speaker is in force when a question of order is not clearly addressed by standing orders. That involves a decision. An opinion of the Chair, which is what standing order 44 addresses.... When it is the opinion of the Speaker that the standing orders as they exist are being abused.... An opinion of the Chair is not subject to appeal. One is a decision, the other is an opinion. It is clear, not only in my mind but in the practice of this House, that an opinion is not subject to an appeal. The subject which we are now revisiting — and I feel, out of order in revisiting it.... It is under standing order 44 that this question was precipitated in the first instance, and I commend the standing orders to you, Mr. Speaker.

If we, by some pretense, believe that we can question the standing orders, or challenge the standing orders of the House at any moment, it will lead to anarchy in this House, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I listened very carefully; I hope that I can be heard very carefully. If we can put a challenge to the House on a standing order which has been put in place and which is the order by which we run this parliament, if is subject to challenge, then it won't be too long before parliament itself is subject to challenge. I suggest that we stick with the standing orders.

MR. SPEAKER: Clearly we are engaging in a debate which in itself is virtually reflecting on a matter that has already been decided by the House and acted upon. I thank both the members for their points and will give them due consideration.

MR. D'ARCY: I would like to make it fairly clear to the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) — it is clear to you, Mr. Speaker — that I am not questioning the standing order as it is printed in the book. I am asking Mr. Speaker to clarify his own statement regarding his most recent interpretation of the application of that standing order to motions to adjourn in the situation in which it was made. It is now in excess of 11 hours since such a question was put to this chamber by Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall we now return to the debate before us, which is the six-month hoist to Bill 2.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: This is a sad morning in this House. Another major cornerstone of democracy has been removed from the people of this province in the House this morning. I know I am here to speak on a hoist, and I am going to do that, but I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that what I witnessed here this morning was totally disgraceful.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 2517 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I saw a member ejected from this House.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we are currently engaged in debate on Bill 2, which is a six-month hoist to Bill 2. We must address the principle. We cannot simply jump to a place in debate and proceed to talk about anything we would like. We we must adhere to the debating rules on the particular bill before us and I commend that to the member for Mackenzie.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware that we are debating Bill 2 and an amendment thereto. What I was discussing here a moment ago is that another cornerstone of democracy has been removed from the people of this province. A member occupying that chair, the Speaker's chair, has abused the rules of this House and standing orders.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: If it is the intention of the hon. member for Mackenzie to have the Chair enforce standing orders, which will preclude his further address to this House, then the Chair will oblige the member. Otherwise, hon. member, either carry on the debate before us, or I will have no alternative but to instruct the member accordingly, which I am sure, as I stated before, is not the will of the member, and I can assure you it is not the will of the Chair.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We are discussing a hoist, but it is very difficult to maintain self-control when you see democracy being slowly eroded in this House, particularly in the wee hours of the morning. This bill is exactly the same as what is happening in this Legislature right now. One of the reasons why we moved the hoist on this bill was to give this government time to consult with working people. But quite frankly, I don't think this government cares about working people. They won't consult. The Premier has made it very clear that he won't meet with people outside, people who are affected by this legislation. A six-month hoist would obviously give the Premier and the government time to do that. I know there is no point in government employees meeting with the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot). He doesn't know what he is talking about most of the time; he doesn't care; he is insensitive and crude. Quite frankly, it is very difficult trying to speak in this House under these standing orders when the Chair itself has abused those standing orders, in my view.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the rules of this House are clear. Reflections upon the Chair are grossly out of order. Continued reference by the Chair to that subject seems to have had little effect on the member's remarks in debate. Therefore I advise him for the final time that failure to adhere to the rules of debate leaves the Chair with no alternative but to enforce the particular standing order which the member is offending. I advise the member accordingly, in the hopes that we may return to the purpose for which we have all been elected to serve in this chamber.

[5:15]

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have made a few notes to speak on the hoist of this bill, and maybe I will stick to the bill for a while, but I am very angry. I guess what I would have said, had not this previous affair occurred in this House for the last 45 or 50 minutes, is that first of all, this bill, in my view, is part of a government package to deliberately provoke confrontation in this province. The government has set out on a deliberate course, and this is why I am suggesting the bill should possibly be hoisted for six months.

This government has set out on a deliberate course to provoke working people, union people in this province, and in particular the BCGEU. We have to ask ourselves, why. What is the purpose? In my view this particular bill has nothing to do with restraint, and that is the reason we moved the hoist. The hoist is to allow the treasury benches, and the Provincial Secretary and the Premier in particular, to meet with the people affected, to meet with the government employees affected.

It is my view that a similar piece of legislation will be introduced, if not this year then next year, that will affect the private sector, taking away the hard-won bargaining and negotiation rights of employees in the private sector. I know that it is easy for the government — at least they think it is easy — to pick on their own employees. That is what they are doing. They haven't consulted with the employees who will be affected. They have made decisions, and while they may have had a couple of meetings with the representatives of the BCGEU, they were meaningless meetings. The government is totally intransigent and is not prepared to discuss.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

You know what this is going to lead to, Mr. Speaker? Complete chaos, just like we had in the House a short while ago. The government won't keep its own rules in this House and now they will not keep those rules that they have set down with the 39,000 direct employees of this province and many more in Crown corporations and elsewhere. This bill affects many more people than that. This is the reason that we have moved an amendment to hoist: to give the government time to think through what they are doing. The treasury benches and all those people on the back bench really don't understand the situation. They don't understand what happened earlier this evening. By their reaction they don't understand what they are doing to parliament in British Columbia today. This is the way government is treating its own employees.

How does the government expect to obtain respect from its own employees when it treats people in this manner under this bill? That particular union is entering into major negotiations at this time with the government and yet we have had before this House, for some time, legislation — Bills 3, 11, 26 and 27, all of which affect.... You can't take one bill in isolation. Four of those hard-won rights of working people in this province. I don't think the government has thought this through too well. I really don't. I think they were overexuberant in the flush of their victory on May 5 of this year and they went into caucus with Mr. Michael Walker present, and others.

[ Page 2518 ]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Who are you, anyway? I thought you were in Yugoslavia, selling coal. Or Newcastle. Is that where you were? He couldn't sell his way out of a wet paper bag. What's happened to the economy since he's become minister of economic development?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment, please. If the minister wishes to interject, which would be inappropriate in the first place, he should at least do it from his own chair. Probably interjections wouldn't occur if the member would speak to the hoist, which I am sure he is well prepared to do.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm better prepared to speak to this hoist than the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks), when he was sitting.... He couldn't handle the House, doesn't understand the rules....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, he abused the rules of this House grossly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, now please, I think we've canvassed that matter well and we can return to the.... I will first of all ask the member, in parliamentary tradition, to withdraw any reflection on the Chair which the member made. I am sure he can do that, and we can continue with the debate.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I will withdraw reflection on the Chair, Mr. Speaker, but not on the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, who is clearly in the hands of the treasury benches and following the directions of the government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon. member, please, to the hoist motion.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, we're trying to speak to the hoist, Mr. Speaker. We're working very hard at it. But it's very difficult when I see my parliamentary rights abused in this Legislature.

Rights are being abused not only in this House, which affects all people in British Columbia, but under this Bill 2, the hoist we're speaking to at the present time. This government has a habit, and has had for some time. Well, they have a lot of bad habits, but I'm only going to talk about one of them. One of those habits that they have is this: what they can't win at the bargaining table, what they can't win by negotiation, they ram through in the middle of night by legislation. That's what they're doing. This particular bill has been on the order paper since July 7, I believe. The government has had the opportunity to call this bill over the past three months, and here we are into second reading of this bill in early October. The government knew very well that major negotiations were to proceed with the BCGEU starting this month. The BCGEU represents 39,000 government employees whom this government treats like dirt.

MR. R. FRASER: Not so, and you know it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's right: arbitrary terminations, which in effect are firings.... I know the Provincial Secretary always objects to the word "firing." The Provincial Secretary always says they have not been fired, they have just been terminated. Well, you tell one of those government employees, someone who has worked for the public service for up to.... I think I heard of a case yesterday morning of 31 years. Terminated, fired. What's the difference? Does the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), know the difference? Not likely. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Labour will be bringing in legislation that will similarly take away the rights of working people in the private sector — hard-won bargaining rights, negotiating rights.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government knows what it is to negotiate. We're speaking on a hoist, and I'm trying to put forward why this bill should be hoisted for six months. Another reason I can put forward is simply this. I don't think the government and some of the members on treasury benches really know what it is to sit down and bargain and negotiate in good faith. Bargaining and negotiating is just that: two parties sit down at the same table and give and take and bargain; they'll give up something here to gain something there. The employer will say, for example: "Look, if you give up the five weeks, or a paid holiday over here that you're requesting, we'll give you an extra I percent per hour." You give something, you trade back and forth, and that's negotiating. You ultimately reach some kind of conclusion when you're negotiating.

I have here, Mr. Speaker, the master agreement between the government of British Columbia and the B.C. Government Employees' Union. I'm sure that every member of this House has a copy. I have marked a good dozen sections of this master agreement that this legislation will affect directly. I'm not talking about the parts of this agreement that Bill 3 will affect. I'm not talking right now about the parts of this master agreement that Bill 11 or Bill 26 will affect. I'm only talking about where Bill 2 will actually and directly affect the legislation and this master agreement, an agreement entered into in good faith by the employees and the representatives of the B.C. Government Employees' Union. I'm sure the government bargainer, whoever that may have been — I think Mr. Davison was the chief bargaining agent for the government.... The point is that this agreement was entered into in good faith. We have before us Bill 2 — and we're discussing the hoist — which will effectively wipe out, I believe, some dozen or more major portions, and I can give you a couple of the main sections. I think I will name a couple, because they're so important. The representatives of the BCGEU bargained for these in good faith with the government representative, and agreements were signed and sealed. Yet this government, by legislation, without bargaining or negotiating at all, or even notifying the union that 39,000 faithful employees, and many more in other sectors of the government.... Under Bill 2 the government is arbitrarily wiping out these sections of the agreement, and I'll just name a few.

Clause 12.01 of the master agreement says that no union observer can attend certain meetings as a disinterested party. I'm not sure that's the major section. But the appeal procedure, under section 12.03, page 29, of the master agreement is wiped out under Bill 2. Part of the reason I'm speaking in favour of the hoist is to give the government, the Provincial Secretary and the people on the treasury benches time to discuss with this particular union some of these major changes that are being brought in arbitrarily under this legislation.

[ Page 2519 ]

I'm still angry, Mr. Speaker. You'll have to excuse me if I'm talking too fast, Hansard. I'm genuinely angry at what I saw here less than half an hour ago in this House.

[5:30]

Bill 2 also wipes out any right.... It's a long section, and I won't read it. I don't even know if it's appropriate under the hoist to read these sections into the record. Bill 2 wipes out section 12.05 of the master agreement. That's three articles of the master agreement wiped out under section 2 of this bill. This bill also wipes out section 12.06 of the master agreement, "Transfers without posting." That was another right of the government employees that was won through bargaining and negotiating at the negotiating table. Section 12.06 will be arbitrarily removed, without any consultation with the union involved. That's four sections that I've marked in the master agreement that will be arbitrarily abolished under Bill 2.

Section 12.08, entitled "Postings," on page 31 of the master agreement will be arbitrarily wiped out when this legislation passes. I usually say "if" this legislation passes, and the reason I say "if," not "when," is that I believe we're in a parliamentary system. We were, until a while ago. But I say "when" because we know now that the government will make no changes. They will not consult with anyone, and they will arbitrarily abuse parliament to get their way.

Section 13.01 — "Layoff and recall" — is gone under Bill 2. That's six sections to date that are going to be wiped out, and I'm only on page 32. The government should have at least six months under this hoist motion to really consider what they're doing.

Section 14.01, page 33 — "Hours of work" — is gone under Bill 2. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I've gone through Bill 2 very carefully as it affects this master agreement. Seven major sections that the negotiators for the working people, the union people, of this province sat down and negotiated in good faith on previous occasions....

MR. BARNES: On a point of order, I've been listening with great interest to the member for Mackenzie, and his comments are so tempered, I am wondering if you have ruled that the member should not reflect upon the loss of the democratic process in this House. Why is he no longer expressing his anger at the way decisions have been made in this House?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

MR. BARNES: He seems to be very tame. What happened to him? Has he been intimidated? This is the quietest I've heard him for a long time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will take his place. The member for Mackenzie is in order, and that is not a point of order.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I want the government members to know — the Provincial Secretary in particular — that I have researched this, and what I'm saying here is absolutely correct. I don't think the Provincial Secretary really knows how he is affecting the master agreement that was reached and negotiated in good faith by the government employees of this province. I think it should be on the record. Every section that is being affected by Bill 2.... It should be hoisted to give the government and the Provincial Secretary in particular an opportunity to look at Bill 2 and see what it is really doing to the master agreement and the government employees of this province.

"Work schedules" — page 34, section 14.02 of the master agreement — is gone under Bill 2. I really think the government should have time to reconsider its position. What can I say? I have been president of my own local for some years and have sat on many bargaining committees, and when you are scheduling hours of work, it is a major item during negotiations with your employer. It is taken seriously. If you are in a 24-hour-a-day operation, such as we are here in this Legislature, you schedule hours of work to suit the individual and the company — they have points — and usually there is overtime or some kind of compensation paid to people working the afternoon shift, the graveyard shift or whatever.

The point is that those schedules of work hours are a serious consideration in any bargaining unit. Yet under Bill 2.... And this is why I believe we should have the bill hoisted for six months, so the minister can look at this. I am familiar to some extent with bargaining procedures. Somewhere down the line the employees give up something on this hours of work schedule, which is nearly three pages long. That is how important that hours-of-work schedule is. Yet Bill 2 arbitrarily wipes out, without negotiations with the employees of the government, the work schedule. That is one of the more serious things that Bill 2 affects, in my view, and I would hope that the government would take a closer look at Bill 2 and this section of the master agreement.

Section 14.03, page 36, is wiped out. It is called "Conversion of hours." It is a separate section. So that is nine sections that I have mentioned so far, and I am keeping track.

Section 14.04, page 36 — "Rest periods...." Still dealing with hours of work, "standby provisions" on page 37 of the master agreement, section 14.05.... Eleven sections of this master agreement are arbitrarily wiped out by the legislation before us, and that's why I feel there should be a hoist. Standby provisions — that's 12. Standby provisions are relatively important, because they were negotiated in, obviously, or they wouldn't be in the contract. But they're important because some employees, particularly the auxiliaries that the government employs, do have to stand by, even if it's at home. They are on call and often not paid. Auxiliary employees particularly are not paid to be on call, would you believe? Nevertheless, they are on call because they need the job and want to work when they can. So this standby provision protects the right of the regular employee and the right of the auxiliary employee, and it is a very important part of the agreement. But it will disappear under Bill 2.

We're still more or less dealing with hours of work. Section 14.06, "Meal periods," is not a big item, I suppose, to us sitting here, but it's a big item to people on the job. That will be abolished under Bill 2. That's 13 sections of this act, and I'm only a third of the way through this book. Section 14.07, page 37, "Points of assembly and work start times" — all negotiated. That'll be gone under one broad section of Bill 2. And "Flextime" — that's under section 14.08, page 38.

MR. MICHAEL: What kind of flextime do small businessmen have?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I heard that interjection from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, and I want to

[ Page 2520 ]

tell that member that I've been in business, and I've worked hard, particularly when logging; it's seasonal and we sometimes worked 16 hours a day — shorter hours than we're putting in here, but we worked when we could, and all hours of the night sometimes, because the operation that I..... It was a small gyppo operation, but we worked very hard. So don't tell me about what it's like; I know very well what it's like. But I'll tell you one thing, Mr. Member: we were fair to our employees — when we had employees. We had up to six or seven at times, and when those employees worked overtime they got paid overtime. When they worked they were paid — until we went broke. And there's nothing wrong with that. But what the government is doing here is totally unfair to its employees. They have negotiated agreements....

When we had fallers, for example — and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) knows something about that; he has worked a little bit in the bush and he knows what it's like.... When we reached an agreement with our fallers, for example, to pay so much per thousand board-feet for trees — you know how that works — they were paid, I want to tell you. So don't....

I refuse to accept that member's interjection. If there's any party fighting for the small businessman in this province it's our party, not that party sitting over there.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I didn't catch that interjection; maybe it's just as well. That member who interjected — I think it was the member for Omineca — is a major participant in taking away the democratic right of members in this House to speak here over the last little while, and he has nothing to be proud of. He should hang his head in shame.

Another section that will be removed under Bill 2 — and another reason why the bill should be hoisted for six months — is section 16.09, the overtime clause on page 44 of the agreement. That's 16 sections — I'm keeping track; I just want to know how many there are and I didn't count them before.

And we go to page 51, "Vacation scheduling," section 18.03 of the master agreement. Once again, vacation scheduling is a major part of any negotiations. You will recall, Mr. Speaker — because I don't think you're that much younger than I am; well, maybe you are, I don't know.... You are? Anyway, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that even 35 years ago it was common to have two weeks' vacation with pay. When we finally bargained in — in the unit that I was with — three weeks a year of vacation with pay, we thought it was a major breakthrough. We gave up a lot at the negotiating table to get three weeks' vacation a year with pay after, on that first agreement, I think, five years — something along those lines; it's a long time ago. What I'm saying is that now unions have finally given up something over here; but generally speaking, those with some seniority have a minimum of one month a year vacation with pay. And that's fine, particularly with hard-working people in routine or repetitive jobs, or jobs where you work very hard — and there are a lot of those jobs around; we sometimes tend to forget that in this House. Nonetheless, I believe that people should have at least that much time off every year to spend with their families or whatever on vacations with pay. But I guess the point I'm really trying to make is that this is a major bargaining item with any union, and here the government is arbitrarily, under Bill 2, mangling section 18.03, page 51 of the master agreement. I've checked this out quite carefully, and what I'm telling you is correct. We have consulted with some of the people in the BCGEU, and the vacation-with-pay clause in this agreement is down the tube — arbitrarily, without consultation with the union. I see a member over there who I know spent many years working.... He worked hard and was quite effective, and he knows what I'm saying is correct — if he's read this agreement at all, and Bill 2. However, he has sold out.

[5:45]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, he did, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: To the bill.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm speaking to the bill.

We turn to page 71 of the master agreement, article 24, the contracting-out clause. That's gone under Bill 2 — and it's why the bill should be hoisted for six months. We turn to page 84, "Job evaluation plan," section 28.02: gone under this agreement; the whole clause wiped right out — another reason why the government should seriously consider our hoist and examine carefully what they're doing. A six-month hoist would give them time to do that, to consult with the union people and the working people who are employed by the government. Page 89, section 31.02, "Seniority on applying for regular positions and relocation expenses," gone under this agreement. Then on page 90, "Loss of seniority" — seniority provisions. "Layoff and recall," section 31.05 on page 91. You should read the agreement, Mr. Minister. So far that's 20 sections of the master agreement — I just counted them — that will be affected directly by Bill 2. There are other sections of this agreement — and I know I can't talk about it here — that will, as I said before, be affected by Bill 3 in particular, and by other anti-labour legislation before this House at the moment. That has not, I believe, gone through final reading. And we'll have a lot more to say in committee stage.

Mr. Speaker, at ten to six in the morning — almost time for a bit of breakfast — I wish to move a motion, and there's no one to give it to. Who? Oh, there he is. Good. I want to move the following motion: that the House do now proceed to motion 24, seconded by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you will permit the Chair just a few moments to study the motion....

Hon. members, the ruling in this case is quite clear, in that the House can only accept one motion at a time. We are currently on one, and a second one would be out of order, and I so rule.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I'm forced to challenge your ruling.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

[ Page 2521 ]

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 8

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

[6:00]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I wish to address the House on a matter of grave importance. Earlier this evening an event took place which appears to be both unparalleled and unprecedented in the history of this House. I will now read from May's nineteenth edition regarding this incident and the action that the Chair is forced to take. Page 442:

"A member who is suspended from the service of the House under this order must forthwith withdraw from the House. If he does not withdraw, the Speaker directs him to do so. If he does not comply with the direction, the Speaker orders the Sergeant-at-Arms to summon the member to obey the Speaker's direction. If he still refuses to obey, the Speaker calls the attention of the House to the fact that recourse to force is necessary in order to compel obedience to his direction, and directs the Sergeant to remove the refractory member. The standing order provides that in such a case the member shall thereupon, without any further question being put, be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of the session.

"Where the Speaker has directed the Sergeant to cause a member who had been suspended but refused to leave the House to be removed from the House, he has suspended the sitting until the member should have been removed.

"On July 2, 1931, a member persisted in disregarding the authority of the Chair, whereupon the Speaker named him and he was suspended on the motion of the Prime Minister. The Speaker then directed the member to withdraw, but he refused to comply. Accordingly, the Speaker directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to remove him. The Sergeant-at-Arms, finding that force was necessary, brought in his officers who, in their attempts to remove the member, were resisted, not only by that member but by certain other members. The member who had been suspended was eventually removed. While this was taking place, the Speaker announced that grave disorder had arisen and suspended the sitting. After an interval of a quarter of an hour, the Speaker resumed the chair and informed the House that, resort to force having been necessary to remove the member, he was therefore suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of the session."

Hon. members, force was necessary, and it is with great reluctance and some sincere sorrow that I inform the House that the Leader of the Opposition is suspended for the remainder of this session.

Continuing on debate, hon. members, the member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I may very briefly comment on your ruling, I note that you referred to resistance on the part of the member in the reference that you quoted.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, again, I must advise the member that we currently are on debate on second reading, and that reference to other proceedings is not in order.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order then, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like your ruling as to whether or not the Leader of the Opposition resisted.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the term "resistance" as interpreted.... Would the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) please take his place.

Hon. members, the term "resistance" is one that is clear by the definition that was used in this case, and I'm sure that when the members have a chance they will see that in this case it was so. The Chair is not going to engage in a debate on the matter. The matter is resolved. It's a serious matter. There is clear reference to the course of action that was taken.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you have made a decision pursuant to your judgment of May and our standing orders. I challenge your judgment and appeal to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, inasmuch as it is the ruling of the Chair that the rules be applied, the challenge to the Chair is an acceptable challenge.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

[ Page 2522 ]

NAYS — 8

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if these points of order relate to the matters that have just passed, they shall be deemed to be out of order and a reflection upon the Chair.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, over an hour ago you took it under advisement to make a ruling on a point of order that I maintain....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The Chair undertook to review the matter raised a short time ago by the member, and not to bring down any ruling. The Chair undertook a review, and, if the member can reflect at all, he will appreciate that the Chair has had other matters to occupy himself in that period of time.

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, I am not reflecting on the way that Mr. Speaker took my point of order. I'm simply pointing out that the Chair has had time to make — by your own admission, sir — a major ruling on an "unprecedented situation," to quote your own words; but you have not had time to make a ruling on an unprecedented situation of a much more minor nature that in fact took place before the major altercation.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Clearly, hon. member, this is a direct criticism of the Chair and will not be tolerated. I order the member to take his place.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LAUK: Under standing order 40 I move that the vote just taken on division be rescinded.

[6:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the point of order raised by the second member for Vancouver Centre is out of order under standing order 50, in that it needs to be in writing, and also under standing order 48 that it shall require two days' notice.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on motions to rescind, I suggest to you that standing orders 48 and 50 do not apply in this situation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member may challenge the Chair; he may not oppose the decision.

MR. LAUK: Well, I challenge your ruling.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 8

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 49, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move rescission of the ruling of Mr. Speaker with respect to the Leader of the Opposition, without previous notice having been given under standing order 48.

MR. SPEAKER: Under standing order 49, hon. member, the motion must be made at the proper time. It cannot be made at any time of the day. It must be made in the proper place. I refer the member to the Chair's decision regarding the attempts of the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) to raise the same issue on numerous occasions.

MR. LAUK: I challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. It appears to the Chair that the observation by the Chair is that standing order 49 may not be made at this time. It must be made in a specific place. Hon. member, it would be most inappropriate to challenge a standing order. Had a decision or a ruling of the Chair been made, then a challenge would have been in order, but to give a standing order the particular weight that it deserves, hon. member, would be akin to a person's asking for a ruling that the House do adjourn at, say, 6 o'clock as opposed to any other time in our standing orders. The standing orders are clear, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Well, I ask leave that the rules be suspended, and that....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. You cannot gain the floor at this time to make that particular motion. It must be made at the particular time for motions on the order paper.

MR. LAUK: Well, that's not in accordance with precedence in this House. Any member can stand up and ask that the rules be suspended and that a standing order apply at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: He must first gain the floor in the traditional manner, and that is to be recognized by the Chair at the appropriate time during the business day.

[ Page 2523 ]

MR. LAUK: I challenge that ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 8

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver Centre seeks the floor?

MR. LAUK: Yes, under standing orders.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Under standing orders is not a way to seek.... You must either raise a point of order or other.

MR. LAUK: Yes. The point of order is...

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, a point of order. Thank you, hon. member. The Chair appreciates being informed as to....

MR. LAUK: ...that I draw Mr. Speaker's attention to the clock. It is now several hours past the regular adjournment hour.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, that matter was determined earlier this date. The point is not a point of order The member for Comox seeks the floor.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is some time ago since you recognized the member for Cowichan-Malahat on the debate on the hoist motion.

MR. SPEAKER: That's true.

MS. SANFORD: Since that time, a number of divisions have taken place, there have been a number of points of order, a number of decisions have been made by you and a number of rulings have been made. I'd like to be assured that the time taken up by those divisions will not be deducted from the 40 minutes allotted to the member for Cowichan-Malahat under the hoist motion to Bill 2.

MR. SPEAKER: That shall be attended to in the member's favour. The member for Cowichan-Malahat has a remaining time of about 40 minutes, I believe.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the motion is that we hoist Bill 2, the amendments to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, for a period of six months. If ever a motion was posed at an appropriate time, this morning is that appropriate time.

[6:30]

There are many countries that have elections, Mr. Speaker, but not all of those elections result in democratic government. Here in British Columbia we have had, for many hundreds of years, a democratic and a responsible system of government. During the last five months, from May 5 through to October 5 — exactly five months — there have been many signs that that sense of democracy is being eroded.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A point of order. It's quite obvious that the member for Cowichan-Malahat has no intention of speaking to the motion or the amendment before the House. Unless she is prepared to do so I think you should bring it to her attention.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is a most unusual time. It is possibly the most unusual period in our history, and members can be allowed some concern for the proceedings. I understand the member has just begun her opening remarks, and certainly some limited latitude would be allowable, but within the bounds of reason. I would ask that we now turn our attention to the principle of the hoist which is before us.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: In the interest of democracy, Mr. Speaker, it is important that this bill be hoisted for six months. Democracy includes as part of the concept the idea of listening to what is happening. The government, during these past five months, has to all appearances turned a deaf ear to what is happening. For that reason it is extremely important that some time be allowed.

Another reason that we require this time is that just within the last few days has begun the negotiating to resolve the contract between the government and their employees. It is inappropriate that at this particular time when those negotiations are underway, this government should be moving to introduce a bill which will negate 50 percent of the things that are in that contract and are being negotiated.

I think it is important that the government take time to have a good look at just where they are, and just what the public is saying about where they are. I think it is important that the government take time to listen to who is saying it. I recognize the government has no respect for the opposition. They have made that perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker. They do not respect that democratic process that is part of this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, it is important that they take six months to listen to what other people are saying, and to who those people are.

It's important that every member of that cabinet and every back-bencher read and reread the "Ethical Reflections on the Economic Crisis" as put out by the episcopal commission for social affairs of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. I think if they read that and take six months to reflect

[ Page 2524 ]

they will have a different perspective about Bill 2. Why will they have a different perspective, Mr. Speaker? Because in those "Ethical Reflections'' they will read:

"In developing strategies for economic recovery, we firmly believe that first priority must be given to the real victims of the current recession, namely the unemployed, the welfare poor, the working poor — pensioners, native peoples, women, young people — and small farmers, fishermen, some factory workers, and some small business men and women. This option calls for economic policies which realize that the needs of the poor have priority over the wants of the rich."

If they reflect on that statement, I believe they will change their attitude about Bill 2. They will withdraw it, in fact.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, Bill 2 reflects on the public service. Perhaps we could relate our remarks to that, and to the reason for hoist.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I realize Bill 2 relates to the public service, but we cannot just isolate one section of our population, Mr. Speaker. I think what the bishops are saying in that paragraph is simply a forerunner to the other things they are saying. They are saying, in fact, that as a first step unemployment rather than inflation should be recognized as the number one problem. Bill 2 is looking only at inflation, and it is proposing, indirectly, to create much more unemployment — to create more working poor.

MR. LAUK: I would draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that there is no quorum in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A quorum is satisfied. Please proceed.

MRS. WALLACE: Unemployment has to be a first priority, and second is an industrial strategy. Certainly this bill has to be considered part of an industrial strategy. It talks about restraint, about recovery; that's an industrial strategy. In doing that, that government has insisted they will amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act to void a duly negotiated contract. That's part of an industrial strategy and that is completely contrary to what the bishops are saying. Third, a more equitable program for stemming inflation, not one that picks on one sector or one group — on the working poor, the welfare poor, women, natives, public service.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please, to the hoist. I think the Chair has allowed an awful lot of latitude. We are on a hoist motion to a very specific bill.

MRS. WALLACE: I am speaking on the hoist, the reasons why they should delay. I want them to look at this statement, Mr. Speaker, because I think, if they look at it with an open mind, if they listen to what the public is saying.... I've given up on them listening to me; I've given up on them listening to this side of the House. I want them to take six months and listen to what other people are saying. One of the groups I want them to listen to is the Catholic bishops. I am outlining some of the things the Catholic bishops are saying, which certainly relate to whether or not this particular piece of legislation should be read now or should be read six months hence.

The fourth point is that greater emphasis should be given to the goal of social responsibility in the current recession. I won't elaborate on that because you might tell me that it's out of order. The fifth point, Mr. Speaker, is that labour unions should be asked to play a more decisive and responsible role in developing strategies for economic recovery. You're nodding your head, Mr. Speaker. I think you see why I wanted to work down the list to this point.

"...labour unions should be asked to play a more decisive and responsible role in developing strategies for economic recovery and employment. This requires the restoration of collective bargaining rights where they have been suspended" — not the suspension of collective bargaining rights, but the opposite; the restoration of collective bargaining rights where they have been suspended — "collaboration between unions and the unemployed and unorganized workers, and assurances that labour unions will have an effective role in developing economic policies."

What better reason to hoist this bill than to allow the cabinet time to digest these recommendations and reflections of those very learned, sincere and dedicated priests and leaders in the Catholic faith? They talk about an economic crisis. This is one of the statements that I think the government should review in the six months that we're attempting to give them:

"Since capital tends to flow wherever the returns are the greatest, reduced labour costs and lower taxes are required if countries are to remain competitive. As a result, most governments are introducing austerity measures such as wage restraint programs, cutbacks in social services and other reductions in social spending in order to attract more private investment. And to enforce such economic policies, some countries have introduced repressive measures for restraining civil liberties and controlling social unrest."

Also measures to limit the rights and privileges of their workers.

Another point they make relates to the survival of the fittest, that that's the supreme law. That's the law of the jungle, not the law of a civilized society. This government, with legislation such as Bill 2, is reverting to the law of the jungle, the survival of the fittest. Civilizations are judged not by that standard, but by the way they look after the poor and the weak, those not able to support themselves. This piece of legislation, if undertaken now, takes us back to the law of the jungle and away from the civilized and decent standard of society that we have worked hard and long to attain here in British Columbia and in Canada. That's why the bill should be hoisted: to allow that cabinet time to review some of the statements that are being made by some very notable people.

[6:45]

The statement reads again in part — and I'm just reading highlights from it:

"As recent economic policy statements reveal, the primary objective is to restore profitability and competitiveness to certain Canadian industries" — these are present strategies — "and provide more favourable conditions for private investment in the country." — How many times have we heard that in this House? — "To achieve these goals, inflation is put forth as the number one problem. The causes of inflation are seen

[ Page 2525 ]

as workers' wages, government spending and low productivity" — but what do the bishops say is the real cause? — "rather than monopoly control of prices."

Rather than controlling prices and profits, this government is trying to put it all on the backs of the workers and, under this bill, on the backs of the public service workers. Wage controls, whether they're federal or provincial, are always inequitable. I grant you, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not deal directly with wage, but it certainly deals with working conditions, the right to work and seniority — all those kinds of things which indirectly are a form of wage, a form of payment: your working conditions, your right to continue to work.

The Catholic bishops called for alternative approaches, and I would commend to the cabinet benches page 5 of the statement on alternative approaches, a reordering of values and priorities in our economic life:

"What is required first is a basic shift in values: the goal of serving the human needs of all people in our society must take precedence over the maximization of profits.... From this perspective, economic policies that focus primary attention on inflation and treat soaring unemployment as an inevitable problem clearly violate these basic ethical values and priorities.... High unemployment rates are accompanied by lower productivity, lower consumption of products, reduced public revenues and increasing social welfare costs."

And that is exactly where Bill 2 is going to take this government. Therefore it should be hoisted. I want you to review it for six months, because if you, of all people, Mr. Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, approached with an open mind statements such as this, you would realize that your directions — the directions of that government — are entirely wrong and that new directions are needed. There are altemative ways of getting our economy going, of organizing that economy and building an industrial future based not on maximization of profits or at the whim of large corporations or big government, but on the needs of the people of this province. That's why I want the government to take some time to listen to people like the Catholic bishops. I'd like them to listen to their own employees. I wonder whether or not the Provincial Secretary, who is not in the House....

Mr. Speaker, we don't have a quorum again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ring the bells and see if we can assemble members.

MRS. WALLACE: When I realized that there were not sufficient members in here to constitute a legal body, I was about to turn from the bishops' reflections and suggest that a six-month hoist would provide time for the members of the government to listen to their own employees, and I was about to ask whether or not the Provincial Secretary had shared with other members of the cabinet the contents of a brief or statement that was submitted to him back in July. This brief was presented on behalf of some six groups of employees of the government and was signed on their behalf by various individuals. It was signed on behalf of the B.C. Government Employees' Union by Norman Richards, their president; the B.C. Nurses' Union by Nora Paton, their president; the Union of Psychiatric Nurses of B.C. by Dwight Wenham; the Professional Employees' Association by Geoff Holter; Graphic Arts International Union by Robert Jennings; and the International Typographical Union by Harold Dieno.

I believe this statement to the Provincial Secretary would provide some good reading for the cabinet during the sixmonth hoist we're suggesting, because they're dealing with the Public Sector Restraint Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, and they make some interesting observations — some truisms I think we all recognize in the abstract, but the government seems to have had a bit of blinder vision when relating to the things they have been attempting to put upon the people of British Columbia and their own workers during the last five months.

What these people are saying is that the concept of voluntary binding contracts freely arrived at between two parties was developed as a cornerstone of the market economy and the democratic political ideals in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Britain. "The evolution of the modern contract and the development of compatible common-law principles have both been acclaimed as a great jurisprudential leap forward from feudal society." I spoke earlier about how we judge civilization as compared to the law-of-the-jungle barbarian. They're talking about the step from feudal society. This is how society has developed. We've come through various stages from slavery through the feudal system and now we are into a much broader democratic concept of how society should be operated. This evolution "represented the end of status society where people's rights, duties, privileges and obligations were determined on the bases of where they were born, to whom they were born, or their sex or age." That was the feudal concept. I believe this government should take six months and reflect very carefully on the provisions they are attempting to bring in in Bill 2, because I submit that what they are proposing is completely parallel with those concepts of the feudal society, from which we evolved into a different type of living and working together and relating to one another.

The brief goes on. "Common-law principles developed to ensure that legal rights, duties, privileges and obligations related to a person's ability to freely obtain those rights and obligations and his or her willingness to accept responsibility. Many of the common-law principles of the sanctity of contract, further developed and refined during the nineteenth century, formed the basis for the development of collective bargaining law." Bill 2, if not wiping out that concept entirely, is certainly restricting it very drastically.

I suggest that six months might be enough time for even the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Rogers), if he were to approach this problem with an open mind, to review the statements and discuss them with those people — talk with the Catholic bishops, the people from the Protestant churches and his own employees and truly come to a process of consultation rather than confrontation. You know, Mr. Speaker, it's a sad thing that at the very time when not just the union negotiations are getting underway, but when that government is making overtures to the people who are concerned about this — the people united in Solidarity, the Catholic priests, groups from the Protestant religious community, the trade unions, the local societies....

[7:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please stick to the hoist. This is a very specific bill, the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act. The motion before us is a motion to hoist for six months.

[ Page 2526 ]

MRS. WALLACE: All right, Mr. Speaker. If you don't want me to talk about the religious community, I'll talk about the trade union sector that is in Solidarity. Certainly there were overtures at consultation, and at the same time that that's going on, we're talking about a bill that's absolutely going to wipe out those very ideas that were supposedly being talked about between Solidarity representatives and the government. So the timing is very bad, and therefore the hoist, Mr. Speaker. If you'll just bear with me, you will see that my remarks do relate to the hoist. You can't always be mentioning, every other sentence, "six-month hoist" if people do not have the perception to follow the greater whole. It seems very strange to me that they are so narrow in their perception of what they're doing here. That's why it makes it so difficult to deal with this motion.

I was dealing with a statement that was presented to the Provincial Secretary which is a very thoughtful statement and which certainly demonstrates to me the need for the government to sit down and review the concept that was presented by those trade unionists. It goes on to say: "The fundamental thread running through four centuries of law is that once a contract has been arrived at between two parties, it's enforcable and cannot be abrogated by either party. To permit unilateral abrogation or to encourage unilateral abrogation of a contract is an attack on the basic principles of our democratic society." That's what Bill 2 does, very definitely, very broadly. That is why I believe the government needs some time to reconsider, to review, to reassess exactly what it is they are proposing in Bill 2.

I don't think they have realized that. In a short-sighted move to somehow try and beat down the public sector.... I'm not sure if it's a power trip. It doesn't seem to be an economic trip particularly; it's more like a power trip. Is there some unsatisfied need within the hearts and minds of those cabinet ministers to exert their power over their employees? They're not seeing beyond that. So, Mr. Speaker, they need to take time. They need to take six months, or maybe more, to review some of these things, to have a look at just how long it has taken for us to arrive at this point where, as civilized human beings, we can sit down, negotiate an agreement freely, without any coercion, and sign that agreement. Then it becomes binding upon both parties. They're ignoring that in this bill.

That same government has often argued for the sanctity of a contract, has often presented that case — the need to adhere to the sanctity of a contract. And now, under Bill 2.... I'm sure that they haven't realized that they're doing this. I don't think that they have realized fully just what they are doing with Bill 2, because they are breaking the sanctity of the contract.

The employees, in their statement to the Provincial Secretary, asked him "to consider for just a moment what would happen to the fabric of our society if any citizen could, at any time, simply ignore or repudiate a contract to which he or she had previously agreed." Think about that for a minute. There would be economic and social chaos. Yet that is what the government is proposing to do. That's what Bill 2 is doing. In doing that, they are casting aside four centuries of British common law.

It's serious, Mr. Speaker; it's very serious. I do not stand lightly at 7 o'clock in the morning to debate an issue like this. I stand here because as the Speaker said earlier: "We must remember why we are here." I remember why I am here. I am here because I have a commitment to democracy. I'm here because I have a commitment to people. I'm here because I have a particular commitment to the people in my constituency. People have worked hard and long for the rights and privileges we enjoy today, and so I'm here at 7 o'clock in the morning speaking in support of the motion to hoist. I know the government is not listening to me, but I'm hoping that somehow, by my reading into the record the remarks of the religious community and the working community, they will be moved to change their mind. I am as sincere as I can possibly be about this. Because I am extremely concerned that six months may not be time enough, I would therefore move that the proposed amendment to the motion on second reading of Bill 2 be amended by striking the words "six months hence" and substituting therefore "12 months hence."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the amendment fails. We cannot have an amendment to an amendment. The six-month hoist is a pro forma amendment, and I rule that the amendment as proposed by the member for Cowichan-Malahat is out of order.

MRS. WALLACE: I regret to have to challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 6

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

[7:15]

MS. SANFORD: This is a momentous day in this Legislature. I must say that as I take my place in this debate on a motion to hoist this bill, it is with a sense of revulsion, when I reflect on what has happened in this province and what has happened in this Legislature as well. I feel sick to my stomach, but I am determined that I am going to stand here, and I am going to continue to speak on this motion to hoist Bill 2 and continue to fight the kind of things that we see happening in this province, things like Bill 2. I am going to stand here in spite of my sense of revulsion, in spite of the fact that I feel

[ Page 2527 ]

sick about what's happened today in this province. I'm going to stand here and speak to this hoist motion.

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

One of the reasons that we must have this bill hoisted for a period of six months is that it represents madness on the part of a government that has gone mad both inside and outside this chamber. This bill means that the people of the province are rising up because they feel they have no alternative. They would very much like to be able to negotiate and consult with government. This government, in its mad approach, through the kind of legislation that we see contained in Bill 2, is ensuring that people would respond as any normal people would do when they are confronted with a government that is so unwilling to consult, communicate or listen to anyone that it's essential we have this bill hoisted for a period of six months. I have some hope that if the bill were hoisted for a period of six months some sanity might return to government, that some sanity might return to ministers who are responsible for legislation such as this bill that we are trying to hoist for a period of six months, that some sanity would return to the leadership of government and to this chamber. On this present course, the government must recognize that they are destroying democracy and the basic rights that individuals in any democracy should be entitled to. They have a right to band together to bargain in good faith with their employers, but that right, along with I don't know how many other democratic rights in this province, is being removed by this bill. That's why it's necessary to hoist it for six months.

I still have hope for democracy. I still have hope that the people who currently occupy the government benches will gain some sanity. I still have some hope — maybe it's a futile hope, Mr. Speaker, and after tonight and the events that have occurred, that hope probably becomes more futile....

Nonetheless, I have been elected to come here and stand in this chamber, to do the best I can to preserve a system and a democracy for which I have a great deal of respect. Unfortunately, the same respect is not held by everyone in this province, and unfortunately, when we have a government that is prepared to introduce legislation that denies one of the basic democratic principles on which our whole system is based, the n I have an obligation and a duty, no matter how futile that might be, to stand on my feet, to be here day and night, to speak on this motion at 7:20 in the morning, with the House having sat since 8 o'clock last evening, to say nothing of yesterday afternoon as well, and do the best I can to convince these people that they're on a mad course. It's a course that is ruining British Columbia. It's a course that's resulting in confrontation. I'm afraid that if they don't hoist this bill for six months and if they continue on this course, then British Columbia is going to suffer very seriously — not just because we have confrontation or have people driven into a position where they feel that they have no alternative but to walk off the job, but also because the actions of this government are destroying democracy itself, destroying the economy, destroying any hope for an economic recovery' and destroying the hopes and aspirations of two and a half million British Columbians.

The government members pooh-pooh what has happened here tonight. They pooh-pooh the contents of the legislation before us. They don't recognize that when they remove the democratic rights that are afforded in any democratic system, they are destroying democracy itself. We have seen many actions on the part of this government that erode our democratic principles and freedoms. That's why I'm ready to stand here and insist that this government consider hoisting this bill for a period of six-months, getting into some consultation with people and having some common decency, rather than just lording it over the people of this province — having some common decency to listen to them, to adhere to basic democratic principles and to cease this mad behaviour.

I wonder if it is worth my effort. I wonder if that bunch sitting on the government benches are prepared to listen to anyone. I wonder if they are so power-crazed at this point, so filled with their ability to rule from their offices, with their ability to dictate to the people of the province, including the government employees under this Bill 2, so filled with the centralization of authority they have assumed unto themselves, that they are not prepared to listen to anyone. I suppose I'm wasting my time at 7:30 in the morning, while some of those members snooze and sleep during one of the most difficult periods that we have gone through as a democratic society in this province of British Columbia. You should be ashamed of yourselves, all of you. Why don't you come to your senses?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, we need only one member in here to try to drive the government back to some sort of rational behaviour.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) please come to order, and would the member for Comox please stick to the hoist motion and stop making personal references to members of the House.

MS. SANFORD: I'm only responding, Mr. Speaker.

Are they prepared to listen to anyone? Are they prepared to take six months to sit down, talk to people who are knowledgeable about the labour relations field, who are knowledgeable about basic principles of democracy, who are knowledgeable about the International Labour Organization's basic precepts, who are knowledgeable about research that has been undertaken with respect to the effects that this legislation is going to have on the people of British Columbia? Are these people so drunk with power that they will not listen to a single soul? Mr. Speaker, I'm seeking consultation during this six-month period that we are asking that this bill be hoisted for.

I hate to give up on democracy. We are interfering, through this legislation, with basic democratic principles. I want to fight for democracy for as long as I'm able to stand here and use my voice to say that you people on the government side are on absolutely the wrong track. Your actions are damaging to the people of the province, they are damaging to the economy and they are destroying democracy itself. I'm not prepared to give up on those democratic principles, and I don't think the people of the province are, even though those back-benchers are sitting there sleeping on this day, in this Legislature, because they don't have to get up here and speak. They're not prepared to defend this legislation that's been introduced by this government.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I take exception to the personal references, particularly when

[ Page 2528 ]

seldom do we have more than three or four of the opposition members in this House. At this moment...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, your point of order, please.

[7:30]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: ...there are about 19 of them out sleeping and only three in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Comox will please refrain from making personal references to members in the House.

MS. SANFORD: The Minister of Municipal Affairs is concerned that people on this side are taking turns in debating this motion to hoist Bill 2. We are determined that we will save our strength and use our energies as best we can to ensure that the madness represented in this bill and all of that other legislation that we have before us is halted. We will do what we can. We will take turns, and that's what we're doing. That Minister of Municipal Affairs is supposed to be....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, one moment, please. It would be appreciated by the Chair if you would stick to the hoist motion, direct your comments to the Chair and refrain from making personal comments about any member of this assembly.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I was pointing out that the basic principles of democracy are being violated by Bill 2. That's why we're asking that the government consider lifting this bill for a period of six months. The Minister of Municipal Affairs gave a rousing speech in here one night in defence of the principles of democracy. I'm trying to show him, and the other members of cabinet who make decisions — I know the back-benchers are not involved — about timetables for this House and about legislation like Bill 2, that by introducing legislation like this, he is violating the very principles that he spoke about the other night. I'm appealing to him, Mr. Speaker, through you, to hoist this bill. If any of them over there have any interest in preserving democracy, in preserving the basic rights of the people they were elected to govern and to serve, then they will accept this motion to hoist this bill for a period of six months. There's just no question about it. If they have any interest in democracy at all, they will accept this motion. I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs is very interested in democracy; I heard him give a half-hour speech here within the last few weeks on the very concept of democracy which is being violated through this bill. Surely if the government has any interest in the future of British Columbia, and has any concept of the damage they are doing to the people out there, to the fragile recovery we had hoped for, then they will accept this motion. But maybe my colleague was correct: it's a futile effort, because this is a group that's not prepared to listen and to understand that they are destroying democracy through their actions, through their behaviour both inside and outside this Legislature.

We have had appeals to this government, not only from those of us on this side of the House who are prepared to come night and day and take our place in debate but also from various sectors of our province, to consult, to communicate, to discuss and to act in a rational way. The way in which the government is acting at the moment, with legislation like Bill 2 depriving basic rights, with all-night sittings, is not consultative and it is not rational. That's why six months is required.

We have, quoted in the Province of August 17, an appeal to the government for consultation, and that's what I'm asking for during this period of six months. I am quoting from the Province article, which is headlined: "Peace in Our Time Urged." People don't want confrontation. They're being forced into it by a government so determined to be vindictive, dictatorial and power-hungry that they have lost all interest in the principles on which our society is based. I've never seen a more warlike government in terms of their actions and impact on our citizens. I am going to quote from this article because it's very relevant to what I'm trying to communicate to the government: "B.C. employers called yesterday for an end to the confrontation sweeping the province over the government's restraint legislation." This is not the opposition; this is not employees; this is not the families who are being adversely affected by this kind of legislation; this is not the labour movement, which is being adversely affected by Bill 2 because it interferes with a concept that they have come to expect is a normal procedure in this province — that is, the process of collective bargaining. This comes from the employers, who are saying: "Let's have an end to this confrontation." That's what I'm saying too, Mr. Speaker. Let's lift this bill for six months. Put an end to this confrontation through this mad approach of this group of people who are now governing this province.

I'm going to quote further from this article: "On the eve of scheduled protest rallies today in Nanaimo and Kelowna, Employers' Council president Jim Matkin urged the protesters and the government to sit down and resolve their differences." Six months would be an appropriate time, I think, to allow cooler heads to prevail, to allow some semblance of sanity to be restored, and hopefully, to make British Columbia a better place in which to live.

Mr. Matkin, president of the Employers' Council, goes on to say in this article: "'We are not happy with what is going on,' he said. 'It has an unsettling effect on everyone'" Mr. Speaker, I think that's an understatement by Mr. Matkin. It's not that it has an unsettling effect on everyone; it has a very damaging effect on everyone.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) please come to order.

MS. SANFORD: The article goes on to state: "Matkin suggested each problem area in the controversial package of legislation be tackled one by one." Now if they hoist this bill for a period of six months, that's one bill that they can tackle by the means suggested here by the president of the Employers' Council. Do they listen to anyone? We know that prior to the last election and prior to this legislation they listened to the Fraser Institute. But are they listening to the Employers' Council now, when they are calling for consultation? The Employers' Council does not want this kind of legislation rammed through in the middle of the night. It does not want the destruction of democratic principles in this province. The Employers' Council recognizes that if they're going to function in the province of British Columbia, the mad approach taken by those people sitting on the government benches has

[ Page 2529 ]

got to be stopped. They are asking the government to do exactly what I'm asking the government to do tonight. Why is it that they're listening to no one? I don't understand that.

I'm going back to the article, and I'm going to quote again from Jim Matkin, president of the Employers' Council, as quoted in the Province of August 17: "Matkin, a deputy minister for nearly eight years under the Socreds until taking his new job August 2, said that nothing is gained by either side digging in its heels." I heard just today requests from the B.C. Federation of Labour for consultation, for meetings with the leadership of this government.

There is no quorum, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a quorum, hon. member. Please continue.

[7:45]

MS. SANFORD: I guess some of them woke up and decided to come back to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No personal references to any member in the House, please.

MS. SANFORD: I am not referring to anyone specifically, just the whole crew of them.

Jim Matkin says: "I think each side should make a move." I heard yesterday and the day before requests from the B.C. Federation of Labour to have such a move, to consult, to sit down and discuss, to have views heard on this kind of legislation. I also heard the response of the leader of this government, who indicated that at this time he was not prepared.... He was going to be elsewhere and it wasn't important enough to him to be present. When you have democracy itself at stake, surely that would take precedence over anything else. Jim Matkin says: "The current stalemate is of no value to anyone. We want to get back to business in this province." They're not happy with the approach taken by this government, with its disregard for people, with its disregard for basic bargaining rights which should be available to anyone. Employers don't want that. Employees don't want it. We in the opposition don't want it. Families don't want it. There's only one group that wants the kind of approach that Jim Matkin is saying is very damaging to the people of the province, and unfortuately they are currently making decisions in this province from the government benches.

But I'm not going to give up. I'm going to keep appealing to the government to accept our motion.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: The government will use any technique that it possibly can to ensure that debate on motions such as this are not heard. It appears that they are prepared to interfere with the electronic system as well. They keep us all night. They eject members from this chamber. They do not allow people to speak in the debate. They abuse the House. And now it appears that they are prepared to interfere with the electronic system as well, to ensure that we are not heard.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) please come to order, and would the member please continue on the hoist motion. And would the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) please return to her seat.

MS. SANFORD: The Employers' Council makes an offer to the government for consultation to take place during the six-month hoist that we are recommending. The Employers' Council, according to Jim Matkin, its president, "is prepared to participate in any talks 'in a consultative manner...to offer constructive support,'" so that the mad course on which we are now embarked can be reversed.

The B.C. Federation of Labour president said opponents want a genuine dialogue with the government. Mr. Kube responded by saying: "If Mr. Matkin can play a positive role to convince the Premier, for the sake of restoring social harmony and economic well-being, to withdraw the legislation and start a dialogue with us, then that would be a noble mission." The only thing we're asking, Mr. Speaker, is that it be hoisted for a period of six months. That's a very reasonable request on the part of the members of the opposition in their attempt, around the clock, to ensure there is a democracy left in British Columbia at the end of the term of this particular government.

One of the things that concerns me is the fact that the government has set out, a timetable — and we're talking about time here; we're talking about six months — as part of its disregard of the democratic system. They are determined to keep us on our feet day and night, proposing motions like this in an attempt to convince the government that now is the time to draw back before they destroy the province; that now is the time to hoist for six months in order to listen to people, even to analyze some of the research that has been done with respect to the actions they are proposing under Bill 2. And there has been research, not just in this country but in the United States. The researchers in the United States point out that when you bring in legislation like this, governments, councils, municipalities and regional districts will resort to contracting out in the hope it will solve their problems. Then they can say to the taxpayer: "We are saving you money by firing all these employees." Under Bill 2 they will turn to contracting out. The research that this government should study during that six-month period has already been done, and it points out that the public is not well served in many instances by contracting out. They point out that it often costs the taxpaver more; that in the contracting out, the employer cannot assure the public of the same kind of service they were receiving from a dedicated public service already in their employ. So research is there; they can look to it.

My green light is on; I am almost out of time. I am pleased that I've had the opportunity to stand here to try to knock some sense into these people who have lost all sense of proportion and sanity, and who are abusing the people of the province. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

[8:00]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 9

[ Page 2530 ]

NAYS — 24

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, how can a division be taking place when a member is out of his seat?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the division had been taken, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, are we going to have any order in this House ever, or just for one side?

MR. SPEAKER: It's a good question, hon. member, a question that members on both sides of the chamber should ask themselves repeatedly in this House.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I would like to participate in this debate and speak against this hoist because I feel it serves no useful purpose, certainly not in the democratic context.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you know about democracy?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to comment on that, very briefly at least. Somehow or other the members of the opposition, the socialists, seem to feel they have a comer on democracy; that somehow or other they were the only ones who went to the people and got elected, who asked the people for an expression of opinion that put them into this House. They do not have some sort of a magical comer on democracy. I happen to believe in democracy, and the only reason many of us are not getting into this debate is because it's really such a ridiculous debate: to accuse us of being against democracy when here they are, in effect using the protections and the principles of democracy to completely undermine the democratic process.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The Chair has on numerous occasions advised members that we are currently on the hoist motion. While members may have points that they wish to make in debate, some of those points are not appropriate at this time on this motion. I would call that to the member's attention as we continue o the hoist amendment to Bill 2.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think what we're facing here — the hoist, the debate that unfortunately they are converting almost into a mockery, so I suppose I'm lured into responding.... The actual intent, the actual statement, the principle of this bill, is not drastic; it simply says that the employer shall have some rights. It acknowledges the rights of employees. It is only the NDP, the socialist interpretation, that says it is of evil intent; that it is designed to create confrontation and to do something not intended. That is their interpretation, and they seem to work on the theory that if they say it often enough they will actually get people to believe it. They maintain — and repeat it over and over again — that the government is not listening. Their definition of listening seems to be: "Do as we demand or you are not listening." Certainly you cannot say, because someone does not yield to intimidation or to this type of anarchy tactics, that they are not listening. They seem to feel that listening means withdrawing or discarding all of the policies and things that you stand for and going along with them because of the intimidation they're trying to create in this society. Then you are listening. Until you withdraw and abandon all your principles, you're not listening. I feel that I am listening to the people of this province and that we are listening in putting this bill into effect. We are interested in protecting the minorities, just as they are; but they seem to feel that to respond for one moment to the majority will in the democratic process in this province is somehow wrong and evil. I cannot accept that.

I certainly cannot accept that we are being undemocratic in following the democratic process. The people of this province — the vast majority — are saying: "We want some say, by the democratic majority process, in what is happening in this province. We are sick and tired of having some few minority people telling us how to run the province and taking it over by threat, by intimidation, by withdrawal of services." When they say that, I cannot accept that we are being undemocratic. I'm sick and tired of being accused of not being democratic. They represent a vested interest group. and they want power so badly that they'll buy it at any price. They want socialism to prevail in this province and they seem to feel that by using the privileges, rights and freedoms granted under the democratic system they can somehow or other impose socialism on this province, despite and against the will of the people of this province, which has been clearly indicated over and over again.

Mr. Speaker, I think this hoist on this bill is simply another tactic. Let us go back all through this legislative session, where the opposition has backed themselves into a comer and have said: "We will stop this any possible way we can. We will stop the democratic process, in effect, using the very freedoms of democracy, and we will use any tactic that we possibly can. If you people out there will go out there and do civil disobedience and will have confrontation — will do all those things — then that will help us to stop the democratic process in this province." So I will not accept that I am being undemocratic. I will accept that they're trying to force anarchy through those things.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Nelson-Creston seeks the floor.

MR. NICOLSON: The member who is speaking now has imputed that hon. members on this side have gone out counselling civil disobedience. I certainly, on the record, counselled against it at public meetings, and I take great exception to that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. An hon. member has found a remark contained in the minister's remarks to be offensive. If the member imputed any false or other motive to

[ Page 2531 ]

the member, would he categorically withdraw that particular remark.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I'm sorry. I've been carried away by all of the accusations and all of the terms that have been hurled across this House at us — and, by implication, at me — because I do feel that I support the democratic process as strongly as anybody else. When I find....

MR. SPEAKER: Withdraw, hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair has asked the member if he would withdraw a remark which another member has found to be offensive to that member.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Out of respect to the Chair, I will withdraw. I was forming an interpretation.

I don't really have anything more to say, other than what would be repetitious. But I have this finally, I suppose, in conclusion. I cannot accept that there is genuine negotiation or a genuine attempt at discussion or cooperation when the precondition is: "Please withdraw everything that you stand for, please withdraw all of your policies, please withdraw all of your intentions, please withdraw all of your legislation, and then we will call it cooperation. Then we will call it discussion." Well, that is not discussion; that is simply saying, "Do it our way, and then we call it cooperation," regardless of the majority will of the people.

So, Mr. Speaker, I can just conclude by saying that I don't think we should be intimidated by the minorities in this province, even if we have to take this continual harassment that we do not stand for democracy. I stand for it, as much as any member in this House or this province.

MR. LAUK: That was the first speech we've heard on this motion and indeed on many of the motions, including the substantive motions for second reading and other motions on bills in this House. It seems to me the last speaker raised some interesting points. I think that he is engaging in a debate, and I want to answer his remarks.

The hon. member is upset that the New Democratic Party members and thousands of British Columbians are accusing this government of deceit. He's upset that tens of thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, of British Columbians are opposed to the way in which this government is ramming through legislation. On May 5, 1983, the Social Credit Party received a mandate to govern this province in accordance with the issues then before the people of the province. It is clear that this Social Credit Party planned all of the 31 bills, many of which were not even dreamt of in the minds of the electorate prior to May 5. It is because the Social Credit Party has received a mandate by false pretences that the opposition feels not only entitled but also duty-bound to resist these draconian measures with all of the power available to it within parliamentary bounds. I deeply resent the hon. member taking great umbrage at our accusations of anti-democratic activity on the part of the government, saying that we are the ones who are anti-democratic. We never resorted to closure. We never resorted to limiting debate. We never resorted to an interpretation of the rules which would limit the minority rights in this parliament. Each one of our steps have been within standing orders and with parliamentary precedent in this House. We haven't decided to sit all night....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the debate on the hoist is somewhat limited, and I think upon reflection the member would have to agree that he is now somewhat beyond the bounds of the scope of debate. While the minister was guilty of the same infraction, and the member could respond to some of those points, the member is now clearly going beyond even the manner in which the previous speaker was beyond the bounds. I would ask the member to bear that in mind and continue his debate.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, parliament was envisaged, even 600 years ago, as being a place in which the governing party or parties and the dissenters, the opposition parties, would have free reign to express their opposition to proposals of government and of the Crown. That is what has kept the British parliamentary tradition one of the best, if not the best, democratic systems in the world. For any hon. member in this House to suggest that for opposition members to take full advantage of that is obstruction is an attack on the very democratic system that has preserved our freedoms in Canada, in Britain and elsewhere for centuries. So rather than the hon. minister taking umbrage, he should reflect seriously and carefully on the history of this chamber and of its background.

This is a motion to delay second reading of Bill 2 for a period of six months. One of the reasons that it's been proposed is because we're entitled to propose it in the full measure of our opposition to the bill. All of the precedents — Sir Erskine May, Beauchesne and our standing orders — allow us to do so. The House agreed in its wisdom sometime before today to limit debate to 40 minutes per speaker. That does not mean that this House at any time has agreed to cut away the rights of opposition members to speak to the full measure which standing orders allow.

The Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act was not before the people of British Columbia prior to May 5. It is a bill which takes away fully half of a collective agreement. It is a precedent, if passed, that will destroy whatever confidence is left in the collective bargaining process in the province of British Columbia. What does the government propose to put in its place? Anarchy, chaos, and arbitrary and dictatorial actions on the part of the government. Was that before the people of May 5? It certainly was not.

[8:15]

If the people were to have expected this kind of arbitrary measure on the part of an arrogant government, the government would never have received that mandate on May 5, and they know it full well. If you want to talk about collective bargaining, you're talking about a process of negotiation. If the traditional measures of collective bargaining aren't working, then the government is incompetent and inept. The Provincial Secretary is in charge of the machinery necessary to negotiate collective agreements with the civil service of this province, and he's coming in with a piece of legislation that is an admission, a confession, a plea of guilty to incompetence and ineptitude in negotiating with that civil service. If this government cannot negotiate terms that are in keeping with the provincial government's budget and with the prerogatives of the Crown to press forward its philosophy through legislation, then it's admitting ineptitude.

[ Page 2532 ]

They can, and they should, sit down with the trade unions involved, set an example to the private sector that is a positive one, and negotiate these issues with the trade unionists who happen to be civil servants. On the other hand they choose not to do so. They choose to believe that to change the fundamental structures of our economy was part of their mandate on May 5. What absolute nonsense! They have betrayed the will of the people. They no longer govern with the will of the people. They're not fit for public office, and I say that this motion to suspend second reading of this bill for six months should be passed unanimously.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in supporting the motion to hoist, I want to suggest first and foremost that we in the opposition recognize the significance of this bill. On its own the bill is not as draconian as one would first think it might be. But it's in tandem with other legislation which, put together, make this very much a part of that package. It's not as though we haven't read the bill over and over again, but when doing so, we have to see that bill as being a part of the whole. That's one of the problems that we have in this House in debating any and all of this legislation.

I know that the member for North Peace River, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet), believes in what he says when he stands up in this House and says what he says. Mind you, he has to use that word "socialist" as if it were a dirty word, just so that he can identify himself as being clean and us as being something other than reputable. This, of course, is one of the heritages that we have in this atmosphere, an atmosphere such that, when really thought about, even the government members who have done very little thinking — and I'm afraid that has been pervasive — and who go about saying: "You lost the election, why don't you leave things alone?" must realize that when we came here in June, recognizing that we had lost the election and that the government had won, we were quite ready to give the normal — even somewhat less than normal — debate to the estimates and so on, by virtue of the fact that the mandate was there. There was no mandate for what has happened since. If the government feels they have one, why don't they get out into the community and have the kinds of discussion that might lead to some kind of understanding?

Instead of that, there are little times of drama. The Premier will see somebody from the community or somebody from the trade union movement and say: "Look, there is consultation. Isn't it smashing?" But when you look into the type of consultation that it is, there is no consultation whatsoever. This bill and its associate bills are not discussed. People are given an understanding that there is something about a committee that might have some magical quality, and then they find that the committee that is described is a Committee of the Whole House, which cannot receive witnesses or any public input whatsoever except phone calls or briefs that come to the members' desks. It cannot receive direct representation from anybody.

The opposition hasn't held up every piece of legislation in the House. We've said that there are significant numbers of bills — around 12 which have been dubbed "the dirty dozen" and which should be reviewed in the light of day, with consultation. Is it too much to ask that a bill like Bill 2 be referred to standing committees? Our standing committees, I want it on the record, are not terribly representative: six government members to three opposition members. But a standing committee instructed to take a look at Bill 2, for example, would then — incidentally, there should be two other bills assigned to that same committee — study it in depth. The "community" that the member for North Peace indicates is so benign.... He could then have input directly from those who are critical. The government could have input. This process could have happened a long time ago. The very fact that there were 26 bills dropped on one day, concurrent with the budgetary bills, must tell us something. It tells me that you are prepared to do a snow job.

I'm not going to deal too much with what the minister says, other than to say this. The member has continually talked about frivolous delays, on this bill and on other pieces of legislation. Mr. Speaker, put that into this context: let's say that these bills are something that would be completely abhorrent to the government side. Let me take you back to the land bill in 1973; there was endless debate from that group that cried, "not a dime without debate" during....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. We have very quiet debate and I would like to see that continue in the House. Would all members please come to order. Please proceed.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on our part there is no frivolous delay. One of the problems, of course, is that we have a law of physics that says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. When a government, for example, decides that they are going to push through legislation such as this by whatever means they have at their disposal, which is marathon sittings and marathon sessions and so on and so forth, they have that right. But the opposition also has the right to oppose as best they can. The Premier has been noted as saying: "We'll break them." The opposition is not to be broken. You see, we don't represent 15 or 20 people out there. We don't just represent our own opinions; we represent a body of opinion that is very significant in this province. And that body of opinion says: "Look, we know that we're the minority, but we also as a minority" — and incidentally if you're going to use the votes garnered in the last election, 45 percent is not a very small minority, but a very significant minority.... Mr. Speaker, 51 percent did vote against the government.

The opposition is calling for just a little bit of sanity in this province. I know that it's going to be very difficult for us to ever mend the tremendous wound in the parliamentary process in this province. I don't think it's possible over a short period. It's going to take a long, long time of consultation, of members' committees getting together and creating a trust. That trust is not here.

The opposition is composed of human beings. Human beings naturally, just by their very nature, resist bullying. We've all been kids and we've all seen how people react when there's a bully on the block. Mr. Speaker, I can't tell you how deeply the opposition feels about this very thing. The significance of one piece of legislation is overridden by far by the schism, the tremendous gap that has built in this legislative chamber.

I've been here now for going on for 15 years. The significant reduction in terms of any kind of empathy, any kind of understanding, one side for the other, is so great. I can remember the screams of anguish in the old W.A.C. days. I

[ Page 2533 ]

can remember the screams of anguish when the NDP were in power. But, Mr. Speaker, they will pale to absolute insignificance compared to the situation we're in now. We ask for a hoist only as a means of telling the government to slow down. Do you realize that there is a tremendous amount of offensive legislation before us, including this bill — not in its own, but in tandem with bills like Bill 3?

[8:30]

The member for North Peace talked about listening to minorities. He said: "We are interested and we are listening. Show good faith." Let that government show good faith and prove that they are listening. I, for one, don't believe that the government has listened at all. I believe that on May 6 a decision was made that there would not be recourse to democracy. The government had gotten away with one of the cardinal sins in the entire parliamentary system. They had, without legislative authority, spent taxpayers' money, and they felt that if they could get away with that, they could get away with anything. So they did. They put together a package that took them to the place that they are in terms of their consciousness and their mentality, without any kind of warning and any kind of consultation. That's what we got before us on July 7, and, believe me, it wasn't very long after July 7 that the opposition in caucus decided that it was our bounden duty to oppose — not obstruct. That kind of foolishness that's going around this House that we're obstructing....

There's no way a minority can obstruct. We can prolong debate, but when there's a one-sided debate, when there's a government that brings in legislation, no matter how benign they feel it is, and the only words we hear in defence of this legislation are from the minister, with not one word of support for this piece of legislation from one other single member of the government side, that's not debate, Mr. Speaker. That's sheer nonsense. That kind of climate in here, had there been give and take, may very well have mitigated to some extent the opposition's position, but the opposition feels that it can't be broken, not because of the opposition and our feeling that we should be governing — we know we shouldn't; we know there's no way; the people have spoken — but we also feel that unless we carry our responsibility seriously we have no right as individual members to be elected to this Legislature. As an individual I'm not ambitious for running the world or the province. I could very successfully retire, but I'm here carrying out what I see as my responsibility, and I'm saying that absolutely seriously. This is not frivolous on my part, nor is it frivolous on the parts of my colleagues. I know my colleagues well, and every one of those people is seriously committed to carrying out their responsibility as best they can. If, for example, there was any sign of good faith — any sign, for instance, that consultation could occur with respect to this kind of legislation — we wouldn't be moving a hoist. We wouldn't be needing it.

What we do need is a time of thoughtfulness, a time to think over this whole situation that we face. I felt so ill when I heard that government member not arguing anything to do with Bill 2 but making a charge that the opposition was having some complicity in designing confrontation. The member from South looks incredulous that I should make a statement like that. Let me tell you this, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker: there has been no complicity. Yes, we've heard people from Solidarity; yes, we've heard people from the trade union movement; yes, we've heard from others in all walks of life. But so have they. There is no way that that charge has any foundation whatsoever. The kind of paranoia that creates that kind of a suggestion in one's mind is the paranoia that's driving this province crazy. It's the paranoia that's making this place unworkable. Naturally we get back to Newton's Law again: for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. That's the vortex we're in. Charge, countercharge, back and forth, to the point where the whole place becomes a shambles. It's going to be a long, long time before this chamber has the respect of the people of British Columbia, and for that matter the people of the whole country. When you read the national press, when you listen to and watch electronic media, it's not a case of being a laughingstock; it's a case where we don't have the respect. We're seen as that north 40 that nobody can quite understand. The boondocks. The frontier mentality. The one with the biggest gun and the fastest draw takes it all.

We've got to get back to a point where this place has respect. We can do that if we will take legislation such as Bill 2 and provide for consultation. As I said at the outset of my remarks, Bill 2 by itself isn't all that earth-shaking; it's Bill 2 in tandem with the other measures that makes it dangerous — not in the eyes of people directly affected, but labour lawyers and others whom I've talked to, people who are familiar with this sort of thing. I know it's a bit of a nuisance to have to negotiate with other human beings. Sometimes those negotiations don't go quite the way we'd like, or quite as quickly as we'd like, but that is one of the prices we pay for freedom.

The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) talked about people not having the right to withdraw their services. What have we got, slavery? You mean to tell me that somebody in this society thinks that another free individual, on a matter of principle, cannot say: "I withdraw my services"? It's ridiculous. The only weapon that people have is to say we must have our rights. The good Lord knows there are no significant wage increases anywhere, so if that's what it's all about.... Trade unions and members of trade unions recognize, as we do, that the money that's there has to go around. I don't for one minute feel that this hoist resolution is frivolous; nor do I feel that this hoist is the socialists trying to govern. No possible way. The statutes and regulations of this province are sufficiently significant that the government can govern. We're talking about resisting legislation that is now proposed, not legislation that is in force, and I think that is a significant difference.

The government can continue to govern, and we're not in any way threatening that. Nor is anybody else out there. I know there are groups that are saying, "Let's take up a petition," etc. That is not significant. We know that what happened on May 5 is significant. I suggest to you that asking that this bill particularly, because it's the one under question now, but also others, be looked at in the light of day, discussed, held back until that opportunity has been thoroughly canvassed, is not imposing anything. That's doing what we consider to be our duty. We're not demanding. We can only speak as long as we can speak. We have standing orders in this House that limit us.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The House Leader says 43. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you this: 43 notwithstanding, the standing order resisting opposition motions, one that hadn't been made for 11 hours.... For that to be resisted, is that within standing orders? Come on!

[ Page 2534 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm listening to the remarks of the hon. member with interest, and I don't agree with his arguments. So be it; he's fully aware of that fact. But I do have to say, with every respect, that he's repeating the material he raised extensively in second reading, and it seems to me he's coming extremely close to transgressing standing order 43. I think he should speak to the hoist.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member; your point is well taken. We've had a very wide-ranging debate from both sides of the floor in the last little while in the chamber. I've been very lenient, but I've listened very carefully and the member on his feet has not strayed too far. In view of the fact that we've had wide-ranging debate, I would ask the member for New Westminster to please continue.

[8:45]

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I gather that the member didn't listen to my speech yesterday, which was totally in contrast to what I'm talking about today. I'm talking about the reasons that we're asking that this legislation — and other legislation — be slowed down in order to afford the government an opportunity to take advantage of the consultation that's been offered. It's pure and simple. We are saying that a bill that offers a good deal of opportunity to be improved, a bill that destroys — and now I will reflect on what I said yesterday — a good portion of a collective agreement, should be discussed in detail with the people it directly affects, or at least with the people who represent them. It's not just Bill 2; it's the package of three: Bills 2, 3 and 11. Put them in tandem and then you find out the intent, and the intent is to reduce the power of people to fight for their rights.

When people have a collective bargaining system that's deemed to be fair, you have less labour unrest. I can remember when Australia brought in their very restrictive — and this is prior to our old Bill 33....

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's very interesting, but it's not in order.

MR. COCKE: It is in order, and it's a good reason to hoist this. We're not debating Australia, and I can't use an example? What the hell are we doing in here, anyway?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It's the second time what?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Shocking, shocking.

MR. COCKE: Look, Mr. Minister of Health, don't give me the shocking stuff. That's mild to the bullying and so on that I've seen.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! The member for New Westminster has the floor.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the member who now has the floor would address the Chair, I'm sure there would be much less across-the-floor chatter.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The point is well made.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I guess one has a tendency to lose one's temper a little bit once in a while. I got up today so angry, and had to contain myself after a member across the floor indicated....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I've been very lenient, but we are on the hoist to Bill 2 and I would ask the member to hold his remarks to the hoist as closely as possible.

MR. COCKE: My remarks on the hoist are remarks that I think make good sense: that is, there is a need for consultation on every section of that bill that does what we consider to be damage in terms of collective bargaining and the contract. It's a bill that has taken that contract and ripped it up. Because we say those kinds of things, it's said we're repeating ourselves; because we don't agree, we're charged with civil disobedience. We're talking about this bill and the fact that it should be hoisted because it threatens the very jobs of the people who have worked tirelessly for this government and this province, and who have taken their jobs seriously.

This bill — along with the other two that I mentioned — provides easy opting-out access without consultation. I know, when your brain is filled with the whole idea of efficiency.... In some people's minds it's much more efficient if you don't have to sit down, consult, negotiate and so on. But that's not what it's all about. None of us here wants to be on the other side of that theorem. We would like to be in a position where we can consult. We would like to be in a position where we would raise the problems that this bill is going to create. Why would we suspect patronage as being part of this proposition? Why would we suspect that the government wants to be free to hire whoever they deem to be friendly and whoever they deem to be highly supportive? They've shown evidence of it — dramatically. That, along with this legislation, is part and parcel of the opposition criticism.

We're not asking the impossible. We're asking that people get up in this House and at least give us their reasons for presenting this. The minister said a few words, but the government has not provided us with their reasons other than the ministerial contribution to the debate. There's no support over there, except in votes. I know it's not particularly easy to jump up and give speech after speech; we're not asking that. Just a few supporters of each bill. If in fact people have a reason for voting for the bill, as they perceive they have a reason to vote against this hoist, then do it. Say it. Tell us. But no, Mr. Speaker. It's felt that the thing to do to get this package through is to stonewall, to sit there, to have a few naps, but just be ready to vote in order to get the government's way. You're going to get your own way, but you may live to regret it. We have given you, on each of the bills — including Bill 2 — an opportunity to pull back, to reassess the position that you've taken. That opportunity continues to be resisted, with long hours of sitting in the Legislature, no debate from the government side, and eventual votes. Yes, you can do it that way, but what a heritage we have left for our parliament

[ Page 2535 ]

and for those people out there who could very easily be far more trusting.

Let me get back to what I said at the outset. Is there anything wrong, because there was no consultation in the first place, with now affording the consultation by referring these matters — this and others — to appropriate standing committees of the House who can hear representation from witnesses? Imagine using, as an example of opportunities that opponents to this legislation have, that the legislation will be going to a committee, and then finding that that's to be the Committee of the Whole House, which we all realize has no input from witnesses. As a matter of fact, it goes on exactly the same basis as we're going now: one-sided debate and eventual votes.

I strongly urge that the government — particularly after a night such as has occurred — think very seriously about their course, and about providing a proper opportunity for consultation, an opportunity where people can at least be heard. If the government's arguments are so strong that they can overcome that opposition, then do it. But let's not incite people. We incite people by being arbitrary. We are being arbitrary with respect to this legislation, and the fact that we will not take it to hoist.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I support the motion to hoist, and I hope others in this House, besides the opposition, will do so too. Failing that, they should take their feelings to the leaders of their caucus and say: "Why don't we just let this sit on the order paper until it has had a chance to be put into a consultative situation?" I don't think that's too much to ask, and I believe the province would be far healthier in the future as a result of that. The bulldozer works fine, but it leaves hellish scars behind it.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege under section 26.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please state your point.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I wish to give notice to the Chair that I have just had an opportunity to examine the Blues and it appears that the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has accused me and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) of lying to this House. I wish to reserve my right to bring this matter forward immediately upon receipt of more detailed information, and I refer the Chair to the nineteenth edition of May, pages 288 and 289.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon. member. Certainly I will take that point under advisement.

MS. BROWN: I rise in support of the hoist, and I'm going to give very specific reasons for why I think the government should avail themselves of the opportunity to place this bill on the back burner for six months before proceeding with it. I think the events of the past evening, if they have done nothing else, have demonstrated to us that not just this bill but this whole legislative package needs a cooling-off period. Certainly the members in this House need a cooling-off period. I'm going to try, anyway, to get through my remarks without responding to any of the heckling from across the floor.

[9:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. We've been very lenient in debate with the last couple of speakers on this hoist. I would like, though, to very slowly get back to relevance, and would ask the member to speak directly to the hoist.

MS. BROWN: I think that's what I've been doing. I started out by saying very clearly that I support the hoist and would be giving very specific reasons, and the first reason I gave was that I think not just this bill but this entire legislative package needs a cooling-off period. I realize that in this debate I cannot discuss the rest of the legislative package, and it's not my intention to do so. It's my intention to talk only about the bill.

I think there are two ways we can respond to legislation which is controversial, is unpopular and is perceived by some groups in our society to be creating a hardship for them. One way is through cooperation; the other way is through confrontation. To insist on ramming this legislation through would be the confrontational way of dealing with it. There isn't any question that that is an option. Certainly it is within the government's right to do so if that is what they want to do. Until an hour ago, I guess, when the Minister of Lands, Parks and Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) rose to his feet, I think all members on this side of the House were convinced that the only means of relating to people that the government was aware of was the confrontational method. However, the Minister of Lands, Parks and the Environment, in speaking to the hoist and in being permitted by the Chair to speak to the hoist, raised a couple of points which we should all think about very seriously. It's not very often that we have a chance for rational dialogue on the floor of this House, but I think it's happening here this morning. I think that's the kind of thing which should continue to happen and which would best happen in a period of cooling-off on both sides.

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing talked about the democratic process. Although it has within it all of the opportunities for confrontation, the democratic process is one which certainly works better in a spirit of cooperation. It is easier for people to cooperate — for governments and oppositions, for governments and people, for governments and workers, for governments and the community — when there is time set aside to consult. It's not possible to cooperate unless you listen to each other and hear both or three or four sides of the story, as the case may be. Cooperation is not a unilateral thing. One person can't cooperate. The government cannot decide to implement legislation based simply on its perception of what is best. That's not cooperation. As a matter of fact, if that perception of the government is shared by the community at large, it works, even without cooperation. But when that perception is not shared by the community at large, when it is not shared by the people affected by the legislation, then what we have is confrontation. To defuse confrontation, or to avoid confrontation, you need consultation, and that is only possible in a framework of time.

It is quite possible that the government and the members of the community who are going to be affected by this legislation, Bill 2, can have their consultation in 24 hours and come to some kind of cooperative agreement. If, in fact, .it turns out, when this legislation is placed before the community at large, that the dialogue takes place in less than six months and the consultation is so successful that cooperation

[ Page 2536 ]

is effective and becomes a reality in less than six months, then the government has ample time under those circumstances not just to reintroduce the legislation but actually to have the people most affected by it explain it to the rest of the community and be their missionaries, the people who will take the word out on behalf of its action. As the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) indicated in his speech, speaking on this hoist, when democracy works, that's what it's all about. What he said was that his belief in democracy certainly included listening, not just to his supporters or to the majority, but listening to the minority as well. That's what the minister said.

But you need time to listen. Some people hear faster than others; that's true. But you have to move at a pace which takes the community along with you. As politicians we all know what happens when you move more quickly than the people you are supposed to be working for and serving — not because of any arrogance on your part, but because you really believe that what you are doing is in their best interests despite the fact that they may not agree with you. That really is....

MR. R. FRASER: They know it in their hearts.

MS. BROWN: Well, maybe they know it in their hearts, but some people are ruled by their brains, not their hearts. Even though they are all organs in the same body, sometimes we've got to give the brain the time to catch up with what the heart knows. It is possible.

But all of this, including the interjections from the member for Vancouver South, support the position I'm taking, which is that the time that is necessary for those people who know it in their heart to get it transmitted to their brain and their mind is time well spent.

What is the rush? Why are we in a rush to trample the basic principles of a democracy which the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing told us earlier this morning that both he and his government believe in? Isn't democracy important enough that we should take the time to make it work? Isn't it important enough to do that? What is six months in the life of the democratic process?

This thing, Mr. Speaker, which we call democracy is really the most precious form of government in existence on this earth today. It is something that a lot of people, including members on the government and opposition sides of the House, fought to preserve. I can't say I did that, because I have never been to any wars. I was not born before one and I was too young during the other. Nor have my children fought in any wars. Basically, I will do anything to preserve peace, because not only am I a coward, but I really do believe in peace. But I know that the democratic principles and institutions which are in place in this province and in this country today are very precious to all of us on both sides of the House.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: We tend to forget that, and despite the fact that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who continues to talk about chivalry, never believes in good manners at any time...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. To the hoist, please.

MS. BROWN: ...I am going to continue with my comments.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations please come to order.

MS. BROWN: I think the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing is one of the first people on that side of the House who has made any attempt, certainly during this session of the Legislature, to involve himself in rational dialogue with members of the opposition. Not all of what he said can be supported, but certainly when he stands on his feet to talk about something which we respect on both sides of the House, I think it's only fair that his comments should be treated in seriousness and with respect.

All I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that when we have a period of six months, a period of cooling off, we have some time to make that process which the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing says — and I have to take his word for it — he is committed to, and which, contrary to their behaviour, his colleagues on the government side are committed to as well.

This piece of legislation impacts on the lives of a lot of people. We can use euphemisms and call them FTEs (fulltime equivalents), auxiliaries, PTEs or whatever we want, but it doesn't alter the fact that what we're talking about are human beings. We're talking about people and their ability to work, their wages, their right to support their families, to have jobs and to have some say in the quality of their work environment — to have some say in whether they work or not, and under what circumstances. That's what we're talking about. It's really much easier for us to talk about that and to make decisions around that when we depersonalize it. That's the reason we create those new little words, because then we're not talking about firing people; we're talking about wiping out positions. It's easier to wipe out a position than to fire a person. It's easier to terminate an FFE than to terminate a single-parent mother, whom we know is the sole support of her family. It is easier to wipe out an auxiliary than to fire somebody in their fifties who has put in 30 years of service to the government and stands a very difficult time in terms of securing other employment.

[9:15]

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not the hoist.

MS. BROWN: It is the hoist. Those are the kinds of things that will be stripped away and that the government and the opposition members who will be sitting on any standing committee in his House will have an opportunity to come face to face with. The members of the committee will get a chance to see what an FTE looks like in real life. That's what will happen. It's not too late. It can't be too late. It must never be too late for us to look at the real face and the human face on any action that we take. It must never be too late for that. If this bill is referred to a committee — not a Committee of the Whole House which is protected by these marble walls and the golden gate and to which none of the community have direct access, but a standing committee which will have to face real people in a real community, not just talk to each other here in this little in-circle that we have here with this little privileged group of people who meet each day to make life-and-death decisions over other people.... That's

[ Page 2537 ]

what the hoist will do. It will give us a chance to go out into the community and see the real face of the decisions that are being made in here. We will get a chance, if we give ourselves the six months, to take this bill — not put it on a shelf somewhere, tuck it in a comer, zip it up in a briefcase and forget about it — and place it before an existing standing committee of the House or strike an extraordinary one. These are extraordinary times; maybe it calls for a different kind of committee. As all the committees are six government members to three opposition members, make it seven government to two opposition or nine government to one opposition. That's not the point. The point is that the people who gave the government its mandate and the people who gave the elected members on the opposition benches our mandate as well will have an opportunity, during that six-month period, to dialogue with us and to tell us what the rules which are going to be implemented when this bill becomes law will mean to them as individuals and as part of a community. That's what the hoist will permit to happen. It will be a revelation to the community to meet face to face with a standing committee and to justify their opposition....

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great patience about what would happen so far with respect to the hoist and I do, with some gentle nudging, remind the member, through you, that repetition is not in order and a new point would be appreciated.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The point is well made. I would remind the member that we are on the hoist and ask her to proceed.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your comments, but I want to tell you that I have been monitoring my statements very carefully, and I have not strayed from debating the hoist....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member — so has the Chair. I'd like you to please proceed.

MS. BROWN: I am absolutely committed to do the job that I was sent here to do. I can't do it if I get thrown out of this House, so it is not my intention for that to happen. I think we tend to forget that in speaking to the hoist I an not speaking just on behalf of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds and her immediately family....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, and now to the hoist, please.

MS. BROWN: But when I speak on the hoist, as I am doing, I am speaking on behalf of those people in Burnaby Edmonds who elected me to come here and do that.

As I said, in speaking in support of the hoist, my main reason for supporting the hoist was certainly my perception, supported by that of my constituents, that a cooling-off period is clearly indicated. Having done that, I proceeded to suggest to the government members some of the things that could happen during a cooling-off period. I had just started to speak about one of those things when the member for Vancouver South became impatient with my comments and moved his point of order.

Nonetheless, I feel that I must press on, because what I have to say, as I said before, I think is important.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please press on, hon. member, but please remember you are speaking on the hoist.

MS. BROWN: That's right.

There are a number of people who reside and work in the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds, which I represent, who will be directly affected by this piece of legislation. Those people would like to have their opinions heard by the government. So I am suggesting that if the government rejects my first recommendation, which is that of the standing committee, maybe they will consider my second recommendation, and that is that those individuals or groups — not just in the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds but in other constituencies as well — should feel free during this period of six months to make direct representation, not just to the Provincial Secretary but also to other members of the government benches — the Premier in particular and some other members without fear of retribution or retaliation.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations is amused by my accent and is proceeding to ridicule it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't ridiculing the dear lady; she is becoming overly sensitive. I didn't know what "fair" was referring to.

MS. BROWN: All I am suggesting is that those people should feel that there would be no action taken against them, that they would not he victimized in any way by this government, that neither their jobs nor their children's jobs....

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the reason for the hoist, not what she thinks might happen through the hoist, is what we are after, is it not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, thank you, hon. member. Your point is well made. The member will continue speaking to the hoist on Bill 2.

MS. BROWN: I am continuing and I am giving the reason for the hoist. I cannot be held responsible for the member for Vancouver South rising on points of order every five minutes. He has been instructed to do so and that's fine. I'll accept that.

MR. R. FRASER: That's a bunch of baloney and you know it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: He has his responsibilities and I have mine.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member has been talking about cooperation and consultation and, hon. members, that sort of thing cannot be achieved without temperate debate. I ask the member to please proceed on the hoist.

MS. BROWN: It cannot be achieved either, Mr. Speaker, if I am not permitted to even complete a sentence without the member for Vancouver South rising to speak. All I was trying

[ Page 2538 ]

to indicate to him was that there are no hard feelings on my part, because I recognize why he is doing it. That's all. No hard feelings. Whenever he wants to rise on a point of order he should feel free to do so. I will give him as much time as he needs to do so.

However, Mr. Speaker, during the period that this bill will be hoisted if the government accepts this motion to hoist it for six months, a number of individuals and groups in the Burnaby-Edmonds constituency, as in other constituencies — including, perhaps, some of the government members' — will have an opportunity, or should have an opportunity, to relate directly to the Provincial Secretary, as well as to other government ministers and their own MLAs on either side of the House, the reasons why they either support or do not support Bill 2. The reason I think this hoist is not an unpopular or unsupported recommendation is the results that we saw recently of an independent poll conducted by the Vancouver Sun, which indicated that although the majority of people support the concepts embodied in the government's legislation, they do not support the method. It seems to me that we need a period of time to find out what there is about the method which people do not support. Six months should be time enough — I don't know. I think we use the term "six months" because maybe it is in the rules somewhere — maybe May or Beauchesne or standing orders, or someone has indicated that when a hoist is raised six months is the acceptable period of time to suggest the government should have to rethink its legislation, or decide to have some input, either from very specific groups or individuals in the community. That's the reason why I am speaking in support of the six-month concept. As I said when I started earlier, it is quite possible that it could be done in less time — I don't know. But if it is clear that six months is too long, fair enough.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The third reason why I'm suggesting that this bill should be hoisted for a period of six months is that I think we need to have the government reveal to us some of the studies which may have been conducted....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Are you willing to accept an adjournment? Fine. I move adjournment of this debate until later today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:29 a.m.