[ Page 2551 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Meeting of Premier and GVRD chairman. Mr. Blencoe –– 2551

Sale of Stikine-Iskut timber. Mr. Skelly — 2551

Bankruptcies in B.C. Mr. Blencoe –– 2551

Mr. Cocke

Sale of Beautiful British Columbia. Mr. Cocke –– 2552

Evidence of B.C. economic recovery. Mr. Lea –– 2552

Utilities Commission report on Site C hearings. Mr. Skelly –– 2552

Treasury board directive 4-83. Mr. Howard –– 2552

Pesticide purchases. Mrs. Wallace –– 2553

Waste assessment sheets. Mr. Lea –– 2553

Premier's comments. Mr. Cocke –– 2553

Export of sawlogs. Mr. Howard –– 2553

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

Ms. Brown –– 2554

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2558

Mr. Passarell –– 2563

Mr. Howard –– 2566

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2568

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2568

Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 14). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2570

Mr. Stupich –– 2571

Mr. Davis –– 2571

Mr. Lea –– 2572

Mr. Lockstead –– 2572

Mr. Lauk –– 2573

Mrs. Wallace –– 2573

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2573

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1983

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, visiting in the galleries today are Mr. and Mrs. Elworthy from Delta. I would like all members to bid them a very cordial welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is a delegation from the B.C. Hotels Association: Mr. Jack Butterworth, Tom Tidball, Louis Valente, Ted Theobald, Rod Verstrate, Larry Thal, Fred Beruschi, Duncan Morrison and Lloyd Manuel. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure and that of the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree) to introduce to the House today a group of students from our old alma mater, Lord Byng High School in Vancouver. I hope that some of them will be inspired by what they see in the House this afternoon to go and become legislators themselves in this fine province. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Dave Norton and Mr. Mario Ceravolo. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome four University of Victoria political science students who are visiting us today: Darren Blois, Tim Henderson, Dave Forrest and David Gartshore. I would like you to give them a welcome.

MRS. WALLACE: In the precincts today, and meeting with our caucus, was Mr. Jim Manly, MP, from Ottawa. I would like the House to welcome him.

Oral Questions

MEETING OF PREMIER AND GVRD CHAIRMAN

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Yesterday the minister indicated that he was not aware of a meeting on Friday, October 7, between the Premier's office and the chairman of the GVRD over Bill 9. Have they now decided to inform you of the discussions affecting your legislation before this House?

MR. SPEAKER: Your question is out of order, hon. member. The member may wish to rephrase the question.

MR. BLENCOE: Is the minister now aware of the discussions that were to be held and of any meetings between the Premier's office and the chairman of the GVRD over Bill 9?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, I am not aware of any such meetings.

MR. BLENCOE: That's too bad. Will the minister confirm that the reason he rammed Bill 9 through committee under closure...?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is completely out of order, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister advise whether consultation has been set up between the GVRD and the Premier's office because the GVRD has lost total confidence in the minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order, hon. member.

SALE OF STIKINE-ISKUT TIMBER

MR. SKELLY: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. On Monday, October 3, in Dease Lake a timber auction was held to sell timber on islands in the confluence of the Iskut and Stikine Rivers about three miles from the Alaska boundary. Will the minister advise what considerations led the Forest Service to hold this timber sale despite a request from the federal Department of Fisheries to postpone the sale?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, as far as I understand it, the sale was put up at the request of loggers in the area.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, by admission of the district manager of Cassiar forest district, substantial questions remain unresolved concerning acceptable ways of moving logs in the water after the sale and of avoiding impact on the valuable fisheries in that river system. Why has the minister decided to take precipitous action to sell the timber before those other resource questions, which he is compelled to respect under his own ministry act, have been resolved?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The sale will continue; however, the sale does not in itself guarantee the issuance of a cutting permit. The conditions and terms around that cutting permit, and the ways of handling the timber, will be worked out to the satisfaction of both federal fisheries people and the Ministry of Forests, and the provincial Fish and Wildlife people. Once that has been worked out, then cutting permits will be issued.

BANKRUPTCIES IN B.C.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The statistics on bankruptcies to the end of August show that British Columbia bankruptcies have increased by 45.5 percent, while they have declined by 6 percent in the rest of Canada. Has the minister decided to investigate the reasons why the economic recovery in the rest of Canada has failed to materialize in British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: That's a very open-ended question, hon. members.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think there are a number of studies that indicate that British Columbia's recovery in the coming year could outstrip that of other provinces in Canada. So that is a positive response.

MR. BLENCOE: Supplementary. In the first eight months of this year, 2,600 businesses and consumers have been forced into bankruptcy in British Columbia. What investigation has the minister undertaken into the causes of the

[ Page 2552 ]

continued explosion of bankruptcy in this province, and will he report to the House?

HON. MR. HEWITT: It is quite evident that the recession causes some fatalities, if you will, in the business community. But I would suggest to the member that one of the reasons this government has embarked on a restraint program is to give some relief to the business community.

MR. COCKE: First, I would like a supplementary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of all that the second member for Victoria has said, has the minister decided to go to his cabinet and reverse the decisions that they have now taken, in order to improve the economy of the province?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

[2:15]

SALE OF BEAUTIFUL BRITISH COLUMBIA

MR. COCKE: It all depends upon how one looks at it. I have a question for the Minister of Tourism. Has the minister decided to table a copy of any agreement and correspondence between the government and Mainland Magazine regarding the sale of Beautiful British Columbia magazine?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No.

MR. COCKE: It would be nice if things could see the light of day. Will the minister advise why Beautiful British Columbia renewal notices have been mailed to subscribers at taxpayers' expense after the sale of the magazine to the Pattison group?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't have all the facts on that. In order to answer the member's question properly, I will have to take it as notice and bring an answer back to him at the earliest possible time.

MR. COCKE: Will the minister advise whether the proceeds from renewal notices recently mailed will be retained by the government or forwarded to the new owners?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The same answer would have to apply, Mr. Speaker. I will ascertain the facts for the member and bring them back to this House for his edification as soon as possible.

EVIDENCE OF B.C. ECONOMIC RECOVERY

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. A few moments ago in question period, the minister mentioned that there were a couple of reports that said B.C.'s economy was going to outstrip the rest of Canada in terms of growth in the coming year. I know of only one that has mentioned that; all others that I've seen have said the opposite. The only one I know of is the Royal Bank newsletter. Can the minister tell me of one other?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I too was aware of the Royal Bank newsletter. But I'll be happy to do research and bring back to the member opposite another one that gives positive reports — and many more.

UTILITIES COMMISSION
REPORT ON SITE C HEARINGS

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, on August 25 I asked the Minister of Energy if he would make public the Utilities Commission panel report on the Site C hearings. In spite of that question the report remains secret — in spite of the cost and the contribution in terms of time and expense by taxpayers and participants alike. Has the minister set a date for publication of this report?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I haven't. But your colleague the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) has a copy, so perhaps you can borrow it from her.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: A question to the member for Cowichan-Malahat is not in order.

TREASURY BOARD DIRECTIVE 4-83

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance a question which I posed to him some time ago, and which I asked again on another occasion, relating to Treasury Board directive 4-83 of August 3, 1982, part of which dealt with the restriction on attendance at out-of-province meetings and conferences to one person representing the province of British Columbia. Has the minister been able to find that particular Treasury Board directive, and is it still in force?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did undertake to return to the House with that information. Other events occurred, and I apologize to the House for that.

The Treasury Board directive certainly permits latitude. It depends to a very large extent on the event that is being attended. The member will know that a very significant part of the travel undertaken at taxpayers' expense in British Columbia is undertaken by officials, rather than by elected representatives or members of the government. Therefore, Treasury Board analysts and I review a variety of requests which relate to travel, whether it is to Washington State, Ottawa, or whatever; and depending on the importance of the meeting — or the lesser importance of the meeting — the number of people required can vary. It is therefore a guideline.

MR. HOWARD: A supplementary question. Inasmuch as the Treasury Board directive says quite clearly that only in exceptional circumstances will additional representatives be allowed, can the minister advise the House what exceptional circumstances permitted approval to be given to the Premier and an entourage of suitcase carriers and public relation flaks to go to Helena, Montana recently?

MR. REID: All the way to Montana!

Interjections.

[ Page 2553 ]

PESTICIDE PURCHASES

MRS. WALLACE: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. Many months ago I placed on the order paper a question to him regarding the amount of pesticide purchases each year: the quantities, the cost and for what purpose. It is order paper question 14. I have waited a long time, and I have not yet received an answer. Can the minister tell me when I can expect an answer to that question?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I will have to check. I know I did file one answer with the Clerk. Whether it was that specific one or not, I'll have to check.

MRS. WALLACE: It's still on the order paper.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Okay, I'll check.

WASTE ASSESSMENT SHEETS

MR. LEA: To the Minister of Forests: about three weeks ago, when questioned in the House about the waste assessment sheets that MacMillan Bloedel would be submitting to the Forests ministry for the Queen Charlottes operation, the minister said he would make those available. Does the ministry have those waste assessment sheets available at this point?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I haven't received them yet, but they may be in the ministry files at headquarters. I'll check that out, and if they are I will be very happy to provide them to the member.

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

MR. COCKE: I'd like to direct a question to the Premier. The Premier is quoted as having said yesterday that there will be no restraint on the private sector. Thursday, October 6 is the date of the paper and it was yesterday's discussion with the Employers' Council, where he got a standing ovation. May I ask the Premier whether or not that means he is turning the developers loose after the passing of Bill 9?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is out of order, hon. members, to refer to a newspaper or other article in question period. That is a long-standing rule, and I'm sure the member for New Westminster is very familiar with it.

EXPORT OF SAWLOGS

MR. HOWARD: I too would like to direct a question to the Minister of Forests. Is the minister aware that B.C. Timber Ltd. in the northern area of the province is selling sawlogs to Metropolitan Trading for export in raw form, while at the same time B.C. Timber is taking steps to shut down some of its shifts in its sawmilling capacity in that same area?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm sorry, I wasn't listening to the first part of the question. Would the member mind repeating it?

MR. HOWARD: I would ask the minister whether he was aware that B.C. Timber in the northwestern part of the province is engaged in selling sawlogs to a company called Metropolitan Trading for export in raw log form, while at the same time B.C. Timber is taking steps — and already has taken steps — to shut down some of its sawmill capacity in that area.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware — and I would rather doubt the fact — that B.C. Timber is selling sawlogs to Metropolitan Trading for the purpose of exporting. If they are selling logs to Metropolitan Trading, Metropolitan Trading would still have to go through whatever procedures are in place, which are rather extensive in detail, before they could get a permit to export such logs. I am not aware that they are doing such but I will certainly make inquiries and satisfy myself, because I certainly don't intend to take the word of the member for Skeena for such a fact.

MR. HOWARD: I don't ask the minister to take my word; I just ask him to be an effective administrator of his department and pay attention to what's going on in the industry. I ask the minister whether he will inquire into the reported practice by B.C. Timber of buying, on the spot market, lumber for cash from other producers, and committing itself to buy lumber on the futures market while at the same time laying off workers in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member I think is referring to a rather hysterical article, I believe in the Vancouver Sun some weeks ago. If the member takes up on rumours and undocumented reports like that, it is no wonder that his facts are so often wrong in this Legislature.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to raise with the minister....

MR. SPEAKER: First, hon. members, the bell terminates question period.

Secondly, on a point of order, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order is that the minister is most wrong. My information came from B.C. Timber.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. That is not a point of order; it is clearly debate.

MR. HOWARD: We need to keep the minister straight, that's all.

MR. SPEAKER: Members will have other opportunities for debate but not in question period, hon. members.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 2.

[ Page 2554 ]

PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR RELATIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I don't think I used up any of my time, although I did actually move the adjournment.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'd like to speak in opposition to this piece of legislation — not in isolation, but taking into account that it is part of a general package which tends to erode the rights of working people in the public sector. I want to refer, first of all, to the statement read by the minister in introducing this piece of legislation. He spoke about the general acceptance of the principle that the Crown is a unique employer and as such must retain certain items in its prerogative, and then went on to list five such items. What those items represent are items which are no longer — some of them never were — part of the collective bargaining process: the staffing process, pensions, organization establishment and administration, classification, and training.

When we look at the 1982 master agreement between the government of British Columbia — the Government Employees Relations Bureau — and the B.C. Government Employees' Union, we see that some very basic and intrinsic things which used to be part of the collective agreement are no longer part of the collective agreement, or certainly will no longer be part of the collective bargaining process once Bill 2 becomes law. We also have to take into account that Bill 2 is only a part of what this is all about. It really should not even be viewed in isolation from Bill 3. The real damage occurs when you put those two pieces of legislation together, although Bill 3 on its own is bad enough. One of the things that will happen once this legislation becomes law is that section 13 dealing with layoff and recall will no longer be a part of the collective bargaining process. It is not going to be possible any more for government and the representative of the public sector workers........

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, no, I'm talking about Bill 2.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I don't want to go back and start debating Bill 3 again, Mr. Speaker, because I know you will rule me out of order. Believe me, if I had the opportunity to do so I would, because there are a lot of things left to be said on Bill 3.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You'll still have an opportunity.

MS. BROWN: Okay, fair enough. But unlike the minister, I am going to stay in order and confine my remarks to Bill 2.

The layoff and recall procedures are a pretty basic and intrinsic part of the collective bargaining process. It should be mandatory, really, that those decisions not be made by either one group or the other. The kind of consultation and cooperation which takes place during a collective bargaining session should be compulsory when one starts to look at laying off workers or recalling them. A number of things that can happen in the collective bargaining process won't happen and can't happen and usually do not happen when arbitrary decisions are made.

Let's look, for example, at the family support workers, who have received their notices as of October 31....

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're on the wrong bill.

[2:30]

MS. BROWN: Article 13.01, "Layoff and recall"; that's what I'm talking about. Let me read the section of the bill that I am specifically addressing myself to: "the organization, establishment and administration of the ministries and branches of the government, including the right of the government to establish and eliminate positions" — that's what I'm talking about — "to assign duties to positions, to establish work scheduling and to determine programs and services and the method of their delivery" are no longer part of the content of the collective agreement. That's what I'm talking about. Is it possible that since this bill was introduced yesterday by the minister it has been amended? Has this section been removed?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not yet.

MS. BROWN: At least the word "yet" is in there. It shows that we still have some hope.

That is the kind of decision and the kind of incident where I'm sure you would agree that two heads are better than one.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) says that on me two heads would look better than one. That's fine. That shows that the one head I have is attractive enough to him that he wouldn't mind seeing it duplicated, which is okay. I accept his backhanded compliments in the way in which they are delivered. But back to the matter at hand.

The decision about terminating, eliminating positions and assigning duties and positions is one that I think the people in those positions know as much about as their employers, even as unique an employer as the government. And the best decisions made in this kind of situation are always made with consultation between the two groups. A consensus is arrived at, either through confrontation first and compromise afterward, or through compromise the whole way through. But you know, it is true — I honestly don't know who was the first person who made the comment — that no one of us is as wise as all of us. Somebody said that. That holds true of this as it does of many other things. When the government takes unto itself — even as unique an employer as it says it is — the prerogative to make arbitrary decisions about the establishment and elimination of positions and the reassigning of duties, really what it is doing is depriving itself of the benefits which would accrue to it if it were willing to sit down and consult, and to allow the collective bargaining process to take place.

That's not an original idea on my part. I didn't create collective bargaining. I didn't design it, as the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) is saying. It is the result of the evolution of worker and employer, of management and employee, over a period of a number of years — trial and error — seriously addressing themselves to the best

[ Page 2555 ]

way of arriving at the most satisfactory labour climate for a province, or for an industry or a business. What really works in the long run is what is in the best interests of the community at large. That's how the collective bargaining process evolved. It wasn't that someone one day sat down and wrote a treatise on it. It wasn't handed down by a government or whatever. It evolved; it came about through the very difficult process of evolution. It then became one of the cornerstones of our democracy.

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet), in speaking earlier this morning to a different issue on this particular bill, pointed out that the democracy under which we live is so important that whether we are government or we are opposition, we are both committed to its preservation. One of the cornerstones of a democracy in terms of a good labour-management climate, even dealing with as unique an employer as the government, is the collective bargaining process. What the minister is saying, and has gone on to say in his speech, is that the framework of the collective bargaining process will continue; however, certain things are to be excluded from it. What the opposition is saying is that the exclusions in themselves threaten the collective bargaining process, which is the reason we are opposed to it. We believe that for collective bargaining to work there should be more consultation, more cooperation, more working together between employer and employee, not less. We say that every time you take something out of the collective bargaining framework, you weaken the whole framework. After a while it ceases to be democratic in its nature and it ceases to do the job — both for worker and for management — that it was designed to do.

I want to go back to the family support workers and the arbitrary decision made by this unique employer called the government: that in terminating the employment of some workers in one particular ministry, the workers who could best be disposed of, the positions which could best be eliminated and the program which could best be wiped out or eradicated was the family support program. That kind of decision should not have been made in isolation. That kind of decision should have been part of the collective bargaining process. In fact, the people working, or their representatives.... Not every worker participates in this debate; they have their representatives. Through their representatives they should have had the opportunity to sit down with the government, through the government's representative, and talk about the layoff and recall procedures; talk about whether the community would be well served if these positions were eliminated; talk about whether this program was no longer useful or whether in fact we had become a society which no longer needed the kind of assistance to families which these workers were providing. Then there would have been no margin of error, or a very small margin, when that happened. There would have been dialogue and consultation; there would have been input from both sides of the table. The best interests of everyone would have been served.

Another section which they lose has to do with seniority and what happens under those kinds of circumstances. It speaks specifically of auxiliary employees in 31.02, loss of seniority in 31.04, layoffs and recall positions in 31.05. In fact, what will happen once this legislation is passed, in tandem with Bill 3, is that somebody somewhere in the government will make a decision that despite seniority, despite quality-of-work record, despite everything, a certain number of people are going to lose their jobs. The decision on whether or not they would ever be recalled will be made strictly by the employer, with no consultation, no discussion, no dialogue and no input from either the workers themselves or their representatives. That is anti-democratic. We live in a society in which, whether you work for the private sector or the public sector — and I've worked for both — you should have the right, and those rights should be protected as part of the dialogue about what happens to your worklife.

People who have given 25 or 30 years of their lives are now receiving a pink slip that says: "As of October 31, you are considered redundant." First of all, the choice of words is not only insulting, it's hurtful. Nobody should ever be referred to as redundant. However, the notice goes on to say — it will become law once these two bills are passed into the body of our legislation — that any decision about their being redeployed to another ministry or to another part of the province, or about being recalled for either that job or some other job, or about their being permanently laid off — in other words, moving from "laid off" to fired or terminated — is going to be made without any input or any advocacy on their part, either by themselves or by their representatives in the union. As a province, as a democracy, we either do recognize and accept the important role trade unions play in our society in an orderly labour-management climate in which we want to live, or we don't. But we can't have it both ways. We cannot say that we respect the rights of workers in our province to organize and to come together as a body in what we call a "union, " but we retain unto ourselves the prerogative to decide on what issues that body can or cannot represent them. It shouldn't work that way, but it does.

Bill 2, when taken in tandem with Bill 3 and a number of other pieces of legislation — Bills 26, 27, 7, 11 and all those others.... When you put all those bills together, what you really get is a package of legislation which very effectively erodes the rights of, and threatens the protection of, working people in this province, whether they work for the public or the private sector. That is the real reason why this opposition, speaking on behalf of the people who elected us, are opposed to this. Sometimes there's a tendency to forget that we too have a mandate; we also were elected by our respective constituents and were given a job to do. I was elected to sit in opposition. I'm not bringing down legislation or trying to be the government; I am speaking on behalf of those people who voted for the opposition. I hope I will be able to continue to do that effectively for another number of years.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about some of the benefits — I know the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is going to start screaming "single issue" at me as soon as I open my mouth — which have accrued to women in the workforce as a direct result of the collective bargaining process, and which I'm afraid we'll lose as a direct result of Bill 2, Bill 3 and these other pieces of legislation that are coming into place. When you are part of a bargaining....

[2:45]

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the minister not to interrupt.

Just let me say that I sincerely appreciate the argument that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds is presenting at this point. It is within the scope of the bill. But there has been some mention of other pieces of legislation, which offends the rule of anticipation. There has also been some mention of

[ Page 2556 ]

debate that might be better covered under ministerial estimates. I'm sure the member can get back to the principle of the bill before us, the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, in terms of what she's saying.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly apologize for anything I may have done which is out of order; it's so unlike me.

In any event, you've successfully broken my train of thought. I'll have to start all over again.

I was talking about the benefits that accrue to women in the workforce as a direct result of being part of the collective bargaining process. A number of public sector workers — over 51 percent — are women. The government, this unique employer that the minister told us about, is the largest employer of women in all of British Columbia, and it should be doing a much better job. However, the kinds of things that women have been fighting for in terms of equal pay for work of equal value, in terms of breaking out of the traditional lowpaying ghetto where they still find themselves — office assistant 1, office assistant 2 is where most of them are — the kinds of methods that can be evolved....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Two deputy ministers. Out of how many?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Two out of 20.

MS. BROWN: No, it's more than 20. Anyway, it's less than 10 percent. Considering that they make up more than 51 percent of the people employed by the government, I would keep that a secret if I were the Provincial Secretary. I didn't mention that, out of shame for the Provincial Secretary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind the Provincial Secretary that they would not be included in this legislation anyway.

MS. BROWN: That's right. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You're welcome.

MS. BROWN: Do you know what happens under the collective bargaining process? The representatives of those women, some of them women themselves, can sit down with the government and bargain for something we call bottomloading, for example. We can talk about giving more to the people with the least and less to the people with the most, and try somehow to redistribute income in a fairer and more equitable way. That can be done through the collective bargaining process. In fact, it has been done. It has started. Now we're going to lose that. Now it will be up to the government, in its infinite wisdom, to make those kinds of decisions unilaterally. The government will decide who gets laid off. The government will decide who gets recalled. As we saw — and I forgot to mention this earlier — most, if not all, of the family support workers who were arbitrarily laid off, without consultation or dialogue, by the Ministry of Human Resources were women. There was no sitting down or discussion with the workers or their representatives prior to those layoff notices going out. There is an opportunity now to sit across from each other at the bargaining table — the minister looks at his watch — and bargain collectively in terms of what is in the best interest of employees: if they must be laid off, what the recall situation should be and what kinds of protection should be built into it; how layoffs should be handled and the kinds of protection that should be built into that. It's no longer a bargainable issue once Bill 2 becomes law.

It says, "No collective agreement shall affect, " and then it goes on. I don't want to read it again because I don't want to use up valuable time in rereading, for the minister's benefit, that he has taken unto himself what he refers to as the extraordinary prerogative of deciding the right to establish or eliminate positions, to assign duties to positions, to establish work scheduling, to determine programs and services as well as the methods of their delivery. What is even more insidious than that and what we are really running into is 13(l)(a) where it says that "the powers and duties of the Public Service Commission or its delegate under the Public Service Act respecting the recruitment or appointment of employees to the public service, whether from within or from outside" — key word — "the public service" are now no longer a part of the collective agreement. Do you know what that means? Let's stick with the family support workers. That means that the government can arbitrarily decide to lay off all of the family support workers but, deciding that the job is important and the program should continue, can then contract that job out outside of the public sector. That's what this says. You have to take 13(l)(a) and put it with 13(l)(c). Because I can't reflect, I won't reflect on what I should reflect on in order to put the whole package together, to show you that that's what can now happen. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), after presenting all of those family support workers with their termination notices, publicly stated that she is now expecting the church and other community groups to do the job that they used to do. The right to permit that and to allow that to happen is enshrined in this legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just briefly, it is a very fine point, but Bill 2 speaks of eliminating positions. Another bill speaks of termination. I realize it is a delicate point, but we could remember that principle.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, it is so delicate a point that it is "floating like a butterfly but it is stinging like a bee" — that's how delicate a point it is. If you can eliminate a position without terminating a person, then you really are delicate. There is no question about that. I'm going to stick with eliminating positions. I won't talk about terminating people. When you eliminate the family support worker position covered by the collective bargaining wage agreement, which wasn't all that great to begin with because, as I pointed out to you earlier, Mr. Speaker, they make in the vicinity of about $1,500 a month before deductions, which means that their take-home pay wasn't that great — mostly women, a lot of them single parents.... Do you know what happens when those positions are then turned over to community groups and to church groups and other groups who have to turn around and come to the government and ask for grants in order to carry on those jobs? The very same jobs, the very same positions, end up with salaries and wages attached to them far below even the measly wage which those people were making when they were part of the collective bargaining process. That's how it works. The end result of this is that people who were poorly paid in the first place have their poverty exaggerated and enshrined and perpetuated. That's what happens.

[ Page 2557 ]

The minister is shaking his head....

HON. MR. CHABOT: I have several children who would be glad to be making $1,500 a month.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about children; I am speaking about people who have to support their families, who are going to lose jobs that then are going to reappear under a different umbrella. They are now going to be the responsibility of community and church groups who have to go to the government for funding to pay those salaries. The salaries are going to be considerably less than the $1,500 which the minister tells me his children would be happy to settle for. My children would be happy to settle for that too, but that is not the point.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right. The minister is suggesting that two wrongs make a right, and I cannot accept that.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I am telling you what the legislation does. Section 13(l)(a) gives the government the right, after it has implemented 13(l)(c) and terminated a program covered by the collective bargaining process, where the workers in that program have the right and the ability....

HON. MR. CHABOT: The program has nothing to do with collective bargaining.

AN HON. MEMBER: She doesn't understand that.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I do. One of the things that the government tries to do is to say: "We're not firing people; we're terminating programs." Programs don't run themselves. People run programs. They say: "We're not firing people; we're wiping out positions." A position, Mr. Speaker, is held by a person. We are talking about living, breathing human beings. Calling them programs or calling them positions or calling them auxiliaries or calling them equivalents — whether full-time equivalents or part-time equivalents — does not alter the fact that what you are doing is firing people. That's what you are doing. Now I'm willing to play the word-games with you....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment, please. All hon. members will come to order. Please don't interrupt the member who is now speaking. I hope that the member appreciates what a delicate difference there is between this act we are debating and another bill that is not before us at this point.

MS. BROWN: Sure. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify for your benefit and for the benefit of the members over there that I am willing to use the term "position" and I'm willing to talk about full-time equivalents and I'm willing to talk about auxiliaries as long as it is understood that we are talking about people — a rose by any other name....

Interjection.

[3:00]

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: That's right. I am talking about people who are going to lose their jobs and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who in trying to denigrate and debase what I am saying, prefers to heckle across the floor about the clothes I am wearing. That's the kind of mentality that we have to deal with. I was not elected to come to this House because of the clothes I wear; I was elected to come here to do a job. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs may not be aware of that. Regardless of whether he approves of the clothes I wear or not, I'm going to continue to do my job.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hold on for a second, hon. member. I'll ask all hon. members to come to order. I ask the member participating in the debate to stick to the bill at hand.

MS. BROWN: I am sticking to the point. What this piece of legislation does is to give the government the right to make poor people poorer. It gives the government the right, which it has already exercised despite the fact that this bill is not yet law, to wipe out positions, terminate programs and throw the people who work in those positions and those programs out of work. What one of the ministers of that government has said is that those programs can reappear under the auspices of community groups or under the protection of the church. All I am saying is that what this bill does in section 1(a) is allow the government to do that. It states very clearly that the government has the power to appoint employees from outside of the public service — section 13(l)(a).

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that we are on second reading of the bill, which is the general principle of the bill. The member is continually referring to specific sections and subsections of the bill. Perhaps she could be directed to address the principle rather than a specific section.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point of order is well taken, hon. member. For the second time I would ask the hon. member to stick to the principle of the bill, please.

MS. BROWN: The principle of this bill is to give the government the opportunity to fire people without them having recourse, through their collective bargaining unit, to discuss either their layoff or their recall proceedings — without them having the protection of their jobs through either their work, their unions or their representatives.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.... I believe standing order 28 requires a member who is speaking to take her seat when a point of order is raised. If we could perhaps enforce that standing order, then I would get on with my point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member please take her seat.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member keeps referring to firing of people, eliminating people, which has nothing to do with this bill. I think perhaps she is referring to the wrong bill in her discussion of second reading.

[ Page 2558 ]

MS. BROWN: Make your speech, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point of order is well taken, hon. member. I would again ask the hon. member to stick to the principle of the bill. I know the hon. member has the ability to do that and that she will.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion. The explanatory notes tell us that this amendment clarifies what can be included in the collective agreement and what cannot be included in the collective agreement. That is the subject matter. So what I would like to do, Mr. Speaker, is move a motion that this bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour and Justice. I just have to sign it....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must advise the hon. member that the motion is out of order, based on previous decisions of this assembly, noted in the Journals.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate your citing the decisions.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Journals of the House provide adequate information in that regard. We will endeavour to provide the information to the hon. member. In the meantime, the motion is out of order, and perhaps we could continue to speak on the principle of Bill 2 until the Clerks find the exact page, if that's of any assistance to you.

MS. BROWN: Do I still have time?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I haven't seen the light come on yet, and you are still on the principle of Bill 2. The Clerks are doing the research on your amendment which is out of order.

MS. BROWN: But I understand you have made your ruling without waiting for the Clerks; you are saying that it is out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

MS. BROWN: I would like to challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 33

NAYS — 9

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. D'ARCY: In addressing my concerns regarding Bill 2 and the principles of it, particularly as they relate to the approximately 40,000 employees directly within the provincial civil service, I want to say at the outset, in case there is any misunderstanding, that we have no quarrel with the need to....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pardon me, hon. member. Did you speak on the main motion last night in moving the hoist?

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I spoke this morning between 3:10 and 3:45, approximately, on a motion that the bill be not read now but rather be considered six months hence.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the hoist was moved by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson). Please proceed.

[3:15]

MR. D'ARCY: In returning to Bill 2 and the principles contained therein, I was relating to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the other members of the House that we have absolutely no quarrel with the need to downsize and reduce the expansion of the public service in British Columbia, particularly as it relates to the lack of proper administration by the Social Credit Party in the last few years. We know very well that with the depression in British Columbia, caused by the rightwing authoritarian centralists who are in control of the Social Credit Party, the government has had to use what used to be called attrition to substantially reduce the size of the civil service. We have been told by the member for Columbia River himself that the size of the civil service has in fact been reduced by perhaps as many as 6,000 or 7,000 people in the last few years.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Well, the words have been attributed to you. Please address the Chair if you're going to talk across the floor. Perhaps you would consult with your friend from Langley and go to the press council if you feel you have been misquoted.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member is making an erroneous statement. He is attributing to me certain remarks about the down-sizing and number of public servants that have left the service through attrition, which has never been reported in the press and is false. I wish the member wouldn't attribute those kinds of remarks to me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you will have ample opportunity in closing the debate to clear up any misunderstanding regarding your comments. I caution the hon. member not to interject across the floor in chit-chat. Please direct your comments to the Chair.

[ Page 2559 ]

MR. D'ARCY: The member for Columbia River is a jovial, friendly sort of fellow, but I know that as soon as he takes under notice the many questions that have been given him in question period and brings the information back to the House — he has made those commitments so many times over the past three months — he will be tabling precise figures on the matters he has raised while interrupting from his chair. Then we will not have need for this sort of straying from the principles of Bill 2 while we are in discussion of this very important piece of legislation.

In removing essential services from the community — services which are deemed essential not only in British Columbia over the past 20 or 30 years but which have been deemed essential in other jurisdictions in Canada, both at the provincial and the federal level, and indeed in other jurisdictions in North America and in the democracies of western Europe.... Certainly I don't believe, in spite of the directions that the minister and the government may wish to go, that British Columbia is unique in the needs of the taxpayers, the people of British Columbia and the voters; nor are we unique in the economic problems that we are facing.

I want to back up the statements I'm making here with some research which I've had the opportunity to do over the past few hours while this bill in principle has been debated, and show once again quite categorically that the public sector has not had the kind of rich contract advancements, in terms of wages or benefits, that have been enjoyed in private sector collective agreements, or even in the private sector where there is no collective agreement, even where the employees simply bargain in a catch-as-catch-can way, more of a goodwill or even old-style patronage way. The reason for this is that the government simply does not face the market conditions, provincially, nationally and internationally, that the private sector faces. The private sector has to attract and retain good people. They cannot afford, in many cases, the risk, or even the threat of a risk, of an interruption in being able to deliver their goods or services. When times were good, in 1980 or '81, a number of very rich agreements were worked out, even in cases where a union was not involved. I'm quite sure the minister is aware of that.

The minister hopefully will explain at some point — perhaps when he closes debate; perhaps when he produces regulations — why in this atmosphere where the provincial civil service.... And this is the provincial civil service collective bargaining act, or words to that effect; that's what it's intituled. In considering the collective bargaining climate and the lack of economic coercion, if I could use that term, that the provincial government has faced over the last few years relative to the private sector, perhaps he will explain why he feels that he and his fellow ministers on the treasury benches need special privileges and powers which the private sector has not needed and has not required in terms of dealing with the demands of their employees, whether or not those employees be certified into a trade union. The minister has not made any attempt to explain that anomaly, and neither have any of his supporters. Mind you, very few have spoken on his behalf, but we can only assume that sooner or later some of these mysteries will be resolved for the people of British Columbia.

There is no question whatsoever that the resource industries of this province in particular, which have been hard-hit by falling — or even, in many cases, practically nonexistent — foreign markets, have been severely affected in terms of a cost-price squeeze.

There are shapes flipping past me. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Columbia River is listening intently — more intently than he did this morning, I might point out. He was looking much more comfortable this morning, but I notice that he is also more bright-eyed and bushy-tailed than he was 12 hours ago.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking on Bill 2, the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1983, we want to emphasize that the private sector was never afraid to go out and meet the challenge, even when they were in a very difficult bargaining atmosphere. They're not afraid now; they were not afraid in '80, '81 and '82; and they will not be afraid tomorrow. They're not asking for special privilege. In fact, special privilege really wouldn't do the private sector any good. I think that the minister, in his private moments, might admit to that, because he knows that in the private sector they have to compete with each other for competent people. They have to maintain morale, productivity and keep an atmosphere of innovation. Perhaps the minister has decided that he does not want that in the public service. I believe that should be in the public service; I believe it's in the public interest.

The Social Credit governing party in B.C. and the minister in particular have not presented to this chamber, or to society at large, a shred of evidence why the route they are going in Bill 2, which is unique in Canada, North America and in the developed democracies of the western world — and we are a developed democracy, there's no question about that — is necessary here when it has not been deemed necessary anywhere else. Governments elsewhere have succeeded where they wished to eliminate certain programs, to, as the minister is wont to say, downsize government and to terminate employees. Other jurisdictions have managed to do it by the normal processes of attrition, redeployment and consultation, and the normal processes of common law, even if their particular provincial or state legislation is fuzzy in this regard.

Within the private sector there is a voluntary commitment, when people have to be redeployed, a department closes, a section of a plant closes or when, on occasion, an entire division closes.... There is a system of early retirement, redeployment and retraining whereby employees of reasonable standing are always given that opportunity to transfer to, perhaps, a less desirable locale or job. They are always given that opportunity. The minister may well say: "Oh, that's patronage. That's a thing of the past. That's Big Brother looking after the employees." But it's a system which has worked and still does work in the private sector, even in the absence of collective agreements. Even when there is a collective agreement in effect, we find that the effect on people when a division closes or technological change comes in, or whatever, is very little. There is very little difference whether there's a collective agreement in place or not.

So, once again, I ask the minister to explain to the public of B.C. the reason that he needs Bill 2, why he cannot use those relevant sections of the Labour Code of B.C., or any other labour statute which may well apply to working people and to professionals who are employed in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, he has not even attempted to do that. He has not attempted to explain why he needs a special piece of legislation that relates only to provincial employees.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The socialists brought this bill in.

[ Page 2560 ]

MR. D'ARCY: I'm not going to refer to any other pieces of legislation. But why he needs a third level of labour legislation relating only to the provincial civil service and not to the public sector at large — to the Crown corporations, municipal governments, school boards, B.C. Hydro, or any of those areas.... Why does he not need one all-encompassing piece of legislation?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The socialists brought this bill in.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Provincial Secretary maintain some sort of order in debate. And I would ask the member to stick to the principle of Bill 2.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I get so agitated when a member makes such erroneous statements regarding why we need this piece of legislation. The NDP brought in this legislation in 1973.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that's not a point of order.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, specifically dealing with Bill 2, I have been talking precisely and exactly about why we do not need the principles embodied in Bill 2. A major principle is to create a separate category of labour legislation for employees within the provincial civil service and not employees within the public sector at large, outside the provincial civil service. That's bad enough, Mr. Speaker, but it has been covered by other legislation which I will not refer to. I strongly believe that, considering all the many divergent industries that we have in this province, all the many divergent types of employers — a drugstore, coal-mine, pulp mill, smelter, Safeway store, the wholesale industry or the fanning industry.... With all the many divergent industries that we have, we can have one piece of legislation and one labour code that can apply to them all. But in the public service, which has a great deal of similarity.... Whatever you find in the public service, we find that the government needs not one but two separate pieces of legislation, and two separate tiers of responsibility. I want the minister to please explain the rationale for that.

[3:30]

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to one other thing about the bargaining power of the provincial civil service and, by association, anybody in the public sector. When a manufacturing operation is closed by a strike or lockout — I use this as an example; let's say a pulp mill, a smelter, a mine, whatever — by and large, apart from the loss of income in the community, the disinterested public is not directly affected that much in terms of being inconvenienced. I should say "relatively speaking." However, when a public service is shut down by a strike or lockout, whether it be the school system, garbage collection, an airline, the ferry system, the liquor stores — I know that's not an essential service but, unfortunately.... It does get people's backs up when any area of the provincial civil service, or any other public area, is shut down. The public is very much annoyed, far more so than if there is a strike or a lockout in the private sector. This further reduces — without any of this legislation — the bargaining power of resorting to public opinion that both sides use in a collective bargaining dispute, which hopefully can and will be settled without acrimony. But it cuts down the bargaining power relative to the private sector that public sector unions have — in this case, the public sector collective bargaining agent of the people referred to in Bill 2, which is fundamentally the provincial civil service.

The minister's claims, when he moved second reading of Bill 2, and the statements made by other government apologists that the government is faced with a management problem the same as the private sector, are patently false. It can be quite clearly demonstrated that the government is not in the same position when dealing with its employees as private sector employers. It's a completely different bargaining position, even without any of this special discriminatory legislation that gives the government powers which no private sector employer has, even under common law — and most interestingly enough, to my knowledge, no private sector employer has asked for them.

It's rather interesting that that distinguished Canadian, William Hamilton, who had a distinguished career as a Progressive Conservative federal politician in the John Diefenbaker government and who was for many years president of the Employers' Council, shortly before his retirement from the British Columbia Employers' Council commented that labour legislation in British Columbia was pretty good as it was, and he hoped that the government wouldn't tamper with it. There may be some unofficial feelings, but that was the official position of that particular spokesperson for the major employers of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister again that if he is going to do any research, or do any brainstorming when he closes debate on this bill, he should give serious consideration to presenting some sort of evidence from some democratic jurisdiction as to some precedent or some recommendation for bringing in a piece of legislation like Bill 2. We in this province have had some bad experiences in the past with so-called innovations brought in by Social Credit governments. I'm not going to dwell in detail on that, but we cannot afford a major level of innovation in such a critical area as the administration of the collective bargaining process relative to the 40,000 provincial government employees in British Columbia who are covered by Bill 2. In the past, some of the Social Credit financial and other innovations — well-intentioned, I'm sure — have come up kippers in this province. We all know them: the Columbia River Treaty, the Wenner-Gren program, the heroin treatment program, the hydrofoils to Seattle and the yachts that sank in the Gulf of Mexico. We on this side of the House sincerely hope for better for the ALRT and northeast coal. Why take a chance on this untried, unproven, unsubstantiated innovation? Bill 2 is a major innovation that deals with 40,000 human beings within the public service, the way in which they are going to live and the way in which they are going to perform in their jobs in the service of the taxpaying public of British Columbia. I certainly don't want the minister to do anything that is going to threaten what everyone agrees, I think, is a fragile recovery that we are going through in British Columbia. Even the most optimistic reports, like the Royal Bank's, indicate that we are only going to gain back about 35 percent of the gross provincial product losses that we had in 1982. I certainly don't want the government, or us in this House as elected members, to do anything to threaten the ability of the people of B.C. to work themselves out of the hole that we are in.

Also, I have a tremendous concern that the government's ability to retain and hire professionals in the various fields of expertise is tremendously important and will not be impaired by the passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, it has been my

[ Page 2561 ]

experience, and perhaps it has been yours and the minister's as well, that the overwhelming majority of provincial government employees are not militant in the sense that we are familiar with, say, with the workers in resource industries and the usual norm in, say, mines, logging or manufacturing. Provincial employees, especially the professionals and technicians, sincerely want to do their job. They are serving people, the handicapped, the public and the private sector with what those who need and use those services consider essential. There are fewer than 10 percent of the provincial civil service, if that, who really want to work to rule or be involved in a strike or a lockout. They don't want a strike or lockout. They want to work, and they want to perform, and they want to produce, and they want to be in high-productivity jobs for the provincial government. I think they need to be encouraged in that feeling rather than discouraged. The absence of work stoppages within the provincial civil service over many, many years is indicative of what I am saying, in spite of relatively low settlements compared with their friends, neighbours and other family members working in the private sector.

In moving to substantiate some of my own thoughts, I want to quote the influential American writer Robert Reich, from his book The Next American Frontier. He observes that in our society today we "lack mechanisms for the allocation of capital towards activities with long-run returns and that the fear of job loss...." Certainly the passage of Bill 2 is going to reinforce the fear of job loss in the provincial civil service. That forces allegiance to work rules that are not in the best interests of the administration of the civil service. It forces allegiance to job classification standards, rigid COLA clauses and consequent barriers to adjustment and redeployment. Mr. Reich goes on further to observe that "financial capital formation is becoming a less important determinant of a nation's well-being than human capital formation, skills, knowledge and the capacity to work together within America's labour force, which will determine our collective standard of living."

I cannot imagine the minister disagreeing with that. I don't think he would, but he seems to feel that that is valid for everybody else, but not for him. I know he is slipping outside to indulge in that delightful habit of his....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh! Which one? Name it, now!

MR. D'ARCY: Well, the only one I saw you enjoy is smoking a cigarette. You may enjoy other bad habits too, but we won't discuss these in the House.

I watched him clean a bunch of people out on a committee trip once, but I never got in the game.

It is ironic that in its declared intent to achieve restraint the B.C. government is acting in a manner likely to jeopardize not only the real resource base on which we depend in the longer run but, more importantly, the social tolerance and community institutions which will enable us to work together to utilize those resources most effectively.

The minister, when closing debate and producing regulations and enforcing this bill, if indeed it is passed, may well agree to take his employees into his confidence about his discussions with various management consultants. He may modify his position in a number of areas, but, Mr. Speaker, at this time there is no commitment to that; there is no commitment to any recognized vehicle towards the goal of downsizing government or at least restraining its growth. We on this side of the House recognize that the government's commitment to restraining growth and downsizing government is new in 1983, because in 1981 and 1982, when the New Democratic Party members in this House wanted to restrain the government's growth in the civil service, which Bill 2 relates to — wanted to restrain the government's growth in ministerial advertising, new office space rental through the B.C. Buildings Corporation, new furniture, and in expanding the size of government in the marketplace....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member please return to the principle of the bill.

MR. D'ARCY: That's right, Mr. Speaker, the principle of the bill is that restraint is the Social Credit idea in Bill 2 in 1983. I am just relating that to the fact that the New Democratic Party were talking in vain about such things in 1981-82, and we are still talking about them in 1983, and we want to help the government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, in 1983 it is the principle of the bill.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I take your correction with good spirit.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: The sun still does rise and fall. I haven't seen it lately, but I am told that it does.

On Bill 2, referring to the provincial government and their move through Bill 2 to have greater scope in moving toward centralization measures and deregulation measures, in my view these will increase dramatically rather than reduce the workload and the volume of trivia which is going to be flowing to ministers and deputies for resolution. I believe that a good, viable civil service that can act on its own with good morale is far more likely to relieve the ministers of the Crown from relatively petty considerations and to allow them to do their job in a more effective way, at the same time serving the public.

In referring to the feeling of security that the 40,000 — or however many they are going to be after Bill 2 — provincial civil servants....

"Permanence in the workplace is more likely to provide the courage to speak frankly and strongly than is dependence on ministerial favour. Even without selection based on patronage but with clear dependence on ministerial or governmental pleasure for retention of office, a changing set of advisers is less likely to have the experience, the interests or the security that will produce clear warnings when they may be needed most in the public interest."

That is a concern that I have on this side of the House, that when something happens that is quite severe out there in a resource industry, when something happens in the marketplace that we in our ivory tower here or the ministers of the Crown should be aware of, if there are not skilled, qualified, observant and imaginative people out there to report back through the deputy minister to the minister what the responsible and reasonable need of the public is through the large amount of taxes that we all pay to the government of British

[ Page 2562 ]

Columbia, then I don't believe the government or this chamber are fulfilling the mandate that we all have to serve the public in a positive way.

[3:45]

Going back once again into the minister's concern in measuring the productivity in government activities, which Bill 2 directs itself to, there is no question that Bill 2 means there will be no significant role for collective bargaining in the provincial public service. The prospects for much less job security in the public sector than exists today and than even has become customary, as I mentioned earlier, in the private sector.... I don't think there is anybody in the province.... The recent survey shows that 25 percent of the public were not in favour of restraint. I think that that survey is...perhaps I shouldn't use the term "bonkers" but it's a little bit out, because I wouldn't be a bit surprised if virtually 100 percent of the people of this province supported the notion of restraint. Virtually every citizen of B.C. has had to exercise restraint in their private life, in their job, in their business and in their recreational activities. I am quite sure that regardless of who was in government, there would be restraint and there would be austerity in the province of British Columbia today. Certainly there is restraint and austerity in every other jurisdiction due to the economic difficulties that we are in.

I am not going to speak too much longer. I think the points have been made by other speakers and I don't want to be tedious and repetitive. Possibly some of the points I have made have been made in slightly different form by other speakers and I know that you have been extremely tolerant, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this particular bill. Because of the gravity of this particular piece of legislation and its severe effects on the economic climate in British Columbia, its severe effects on the way that other jurisdictions look at us in British Columbia, the way that the rest of Canada looks at us.... It is very important that our international competitors have confidence in dealing with our companies and making contracts with our companies. It is very important that the public sector of British Columbia — I should be specific, Mr. Speaker; the provincial civil service — can deal in a detailed and effective way, especially with those areas of the economy which are essential for economic recovery: certainly such services as land titles and registry, the registration of mineral claims, the superintendent of broker's office, the need for having an efficient court system, the administration of justice, all these things which we take for granted within the provincial civil service. If there is a concern on the part of the 2.8 million people we have now in British Columbia that they may not get those kinds of services — they may not be able to find a conservation officer when they need one, they may not be able to find a Forest Service employee when there is need to protect that resource — that fear, both within and outside the province, could severely affect the ability of our economy to recover and our ability to attract investment capital, contracts, sales business and expansion of our industry. Certainly if there is a concern about the province as an administrative authority — the province's ability to deliver the services which it is mandated to do under the constitution of Canada and under the various statutes which it has passed over a period of time.... I relate to your concern, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 2, if it in fact will — and I contend it will, if passed in its present form — threaten the ability of the provincial civil service to deliver those services and that kind of confidence out there because of the lowering of morale, the loss of innovation and perhaps a loss of some very competent and valuable people, then economic recovery in the province of British Columbia could well lag behind the rest of Canada and the rest of North America for that reason alone.

That's why I want the minister to seriously consider, when he closes debate, how he is jamming this bill through the House and proclaiming it and simply going ahead without explaining to the public the regulations, without explaining the philosophies behind it, without giving some backup technical information from someone in the public administration field, either trained or elected, that bears out the route he is going. What the minister says he wants to do, through Bill 2.... What he is going to attempt to accomplish has been accomplished and is being accomplished in other jurisdictions without legislation that embodies the principles of Bill 2. It has been accomplished in other provinces of Canada even under conservative-type governments. It has been accomplished in the United States and in the state of California without legislation of this type. As we all know, what the minister wants to accomplish has been realized within the private sector in many cases even though the private sector employers have nowhere near the kind of bargaining power that the government has with its employees.

Therefore, to give the minister that chance, I would like, with all respect, to move that the bill be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter be referred to the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, in reading the motion I find the motion out of order. Citation 61, section 3, pages 132 and 133.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I would like to disagree with you and challenge your ruling.

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 10

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 42 to correct a statement attributed to me. During question period today the minister....

[ Page 2563 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment, hon. member.

Hon. member, has the point of order to do with the debate we are in at this particular time?

MRS. WALLACE: No. This is the earliest opportunity that I have had to correct a statement that was made during question period.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I can't accept the point of order, not under standing order 42. I'm sorry, hon. members, they are the standing orders of the House.

I will recognize a speaker on the debate.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, in reading standing order 42.... Could you explain to me why I cannot, or at what point I can correct this? This is the first opportunity, and it indicates that a member may speak twice in explanation of material that has been misunderstood.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, question period was between 2 and 2:30, and it is now 4 o'clock, so I would not say that this was the earliest opportunity you have had to raise that matter.

MRS. WALLACE: I had to check the material, Mr. Speaker. This is the first opportunity I've had to correct the statements.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the hon. member take her seat, please.

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, members in this House are constantly rising on points of order to interrupt someone who is speaking to correct something which they think has been misconstrued. The member for Cowichan-Malahat at least had the courtesy not to interrupt the proceedings of the House. She has asked to make a brief correction, and I accept your decision that it may well be out of order to do so at this point, but would it be possible — if the member for Cowichan-Malahat is going to be very brief in her correction — for leave to be given to make a brief correction?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted, hon. members?

Leave granted.

MRS. WALLACE: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers) implied that I had a copy of a report from the Utilities Commission — the panel report on Site C — and that I had quoted from that report. I would like it to be known that I do not have a copy of that report. I had information relative to the content, but I am still waiting to receive a copy of the report.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, leave was granted to the member on the understanding that she wished to correct a material part of her speech, as it is cited under 42 (l). The member attempted to correct or offer a different opinion of a statement made in question period by a minister. She was simply entering into debate, and I think it is unfortunate that perhaps the member misunderstood the intent of standing order 42.

MR. SKELLY: If the minister had been in the House he would have stood up to correct the point himself. I discussed the matter with him after the question period, and he indicated that in fact he was not sure whether the member had a copy of the document or not, and he was perfectly willing to see the issue corrected.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think we have canvassed the point of order. You have had an opportunity to correct the statement, and leave was granted by the House to do that. It is a typical example of what happens when we stand up on points of order at intermittent times during debate. I think we should get back to the debate on Bill 2, hon. member.

I would be pleased if you would take your seat while the Speaker is speaking.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On what point of order, hon. member?

MRS. WALLACE: Under standing order 42 a member is allowed to correct a statement. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) indicated I had not corrected a statement. I had corrected a statement attributed to me that I had quoted from a report. I did not....

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, when the Speaker is standing, you take your place.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we have canvassed that well, you've had an opportunity to speak and to clear up any misunderstandings that members may have had about statements made, and we shall now continue with debate on Bill 2, please.

The minister.... The member for Atlin.

MR. PASSARELL: I thought you were going to introduce me as the minister, the way you started off.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I know the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is a little jealous, but that's all right.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, to begin I'd like to read the explanatory note on this two-page bill, the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1983: "This amendment clarifies what matters may not be included in a collective agreement between an employer and employees under the Public Service Labour Relations Act." In essence, it says that basically the government wants to delete statutes of long

[ Page 2564 ]

standing in relation to public service employees and wants to include certain aspects that have not previously been found in collective agreements between the government and public sector employees. One of the important issues in why the opposition has opposed second reading of Bill 2 is the aspect of collective agreements. A founding principle in this country is that of collective agreements between employers and employees: the aspect of faith in collective bargaining that has led to signed legal contracts. It has taken a long time to have this collective bargaining aspect brought in to the workforce, and after hundreds of years of striving by the workers for a fair and honest collective agreement, with one stroke of the pen, this government, through Bill 2, wants to erase from our labour history all the dedication and commitment.

Why is this government bringing in this bill at this time of very touchy labour-management relations in this province? Depending on whether you read Mr. Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute, his synopsis of the economy, or read others, we're in a very delicate situation right now in this province, and what we don't need is a confrontation between government and its workers. I think the reason the government is bringing in this bill at this stage of the game is that it's setting the stage for similar legislation to cover every worker in both the private and the public sectors in this province. This is just the start — attacking the public sector employees.

Basically this Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1983 will break the ice in the very fragile climate that exists between employers and employees in the private and public sectors by destroying collective agreements. I see no logical reason why, in the present recession, this government is encouraging labour unrest through this bill, or why this government would bring in a draconian bill that will in effect hurt the small businesses and industries that are trying to recover from the last few years of recession. In a sense, Bill 2 is anti-profit, anti-worker and anti-management. That is something very different for Social Credit, which has, decade upon decade, stated that they are a party of small business and industry. You're turning the clock back by attacking the people whom you state you are out to protect. This bill will cause labour unrest right through the province.

Some of the aspects of the bill itself in regard to what I see as the important issue in the collective bargaining aspect is the method of delivery of government services, meaning that we can debate contracting out. I have two thoughts on the contracting out of government services. Later in my presentation I will be stating some of the positive aspects of certain very narrow regards in the contracting out of government services. Overall, I'm basically opposed to the contracting out of government services because it's just a scam, a con, to allow a number of dedicated public servants in this province — single parents — to be canned by the government without cause, to lose their jobs — for what purpose? Not to save money. The government attempts to bring forth that it's restraint; that it's going to save the public money by firing 15,000 or 5,000 public sector employees. It's just the opposite; you'll cause more money to come out of the government coffers by doing this.

In the bill there is one basic philosophical principle where the two parties differ: the aspect of the equality of rights between public and private sector workers. If the government truly believes in equalizing conditions, why are they restricting the bargaining rights held by workers in the private sector?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. PASSARELL: I know, Mr. Speaker; I'm going into new material now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that's not it. This is a public service labour relations act only. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the member, but this deals with the public service, not the private sector.

MR. PASSARELL: Let's take it to the extreme here. If the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1983 passes, it will deny jobs to people with collective bargaining rights in this province. Let's take it to the extreme, because I think much of the legislation presented by the government is extremist. Let's look at what would happen if this bill passes, which it will today; we have 22 speakers and you have 35; we're down to the best of it. Let's look at some of the labour-management unrest that has been fuelled by the government. Let's look at the north. As the Speaker knows, winter is upon us in the great white north. Many of us who live in the Atlin constituency are isolated and have to depend on the road service to get out or to move around. No commercial aircraft land in our small communities. We have to depend on Highway 37. If this bill does go through and the BCGEU is pushed into a comer and loses some of the bargaining rights that were guaranteed through previous legislation, what will happen in the north when the residents find out that no more graders are coming out for a day or two? That could be a real disaster in many regards. I certainly hope the government will look through Bill 2 before it starts bashing around government employees.

Regarding winter, another thing that could happen in the extreme has to do with fishing licences. I know my hon. friend from Point Grey is an avid sports fisherman. Let's just say that government employees in Atlin walk out; they're forced into a confrontation with the government if this bill passes. People don't pick up their fishing licences, so you'll have poaching going on. People will be going out on the ice and drilling holes, fishing in the night. Individuals could end up falling into these holes. It could be a national disaster.

AN HON. MEMBER: It could be dangerous.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm glad you people have finally hit on this. I've been keeping this in my desk for a long time — it's called "The Bare Facts." It's a column that I'm going to be doing with Hansard weekly. I have these little bare facts that I'd like to share with my colleagues. Do you remember the old Groucho Marx routine? When the name was said, the bird came down. Well, we've heard it, so we'll give one here.

A minister stayed in a hotel in Vancouver for over a hundred days. How many towels did he use?

[4:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, to the bill, please.

MR. PASSARELL: The answer is: none . As soon as we hear that famous thing that the old Groucho Marx....
We've got a lot of these bare facts here.

Interjection.

[ Page 2565 ]

MR. PASSARELL: That's the problem, Mr. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). If we restrict individuals from buying fishing licences....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Unbelievably big fish. You'll have to make me a promise that you won't come up and open up a restaurant, all right? Not after you said our restaurants up north were just greasy spoons.

Another important aspect of Bill 2 in regard to the problems that this government could find itself in, and some of the disasters and hardships that will be placed upon residents in the great white north if this bill passes and forces organized public sector employees to go on strike.... We're talking about something that could drastically affect Christmas. As all hon. members in this House know, Christmas is an important thing. We can't postpone Christmas.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: I don't understand the inane comments coming from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who is not in his seat.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: You people are going to restrict the residents of British Columbia from having Christmas? You are already restricting public sector employees.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the hon. member for Atlin would make his remarks relevant to the bill, maybe the heckling would cease. I'm having a hard time relating the member's remarks to the principle of this bill.

MR. PASSARELL: No, no, I like the heckling, Mr. Speaker. That's the fun part. What scares me is when they are yelling across that they're going to take Christmas away from people.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

MR. PASSARELL: You don't think they'll do that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the yelling and the heckling and the interjections will no doubt cease, and cease immediately, when the member returns to the principle of Bill 2, the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1983.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague from Omineca really believes in Santa Claus. I know he does because he has told me so personally. But back to Bill 2, Mr. Speaker: what are we going to do if we start closing down and there are picket lines put around vendors?

The other important aspect that could cause problems in the north is marriage licences. If the government offices are closed up, where are people going to get their marriage licences? Look at that — they will be denied the opportunity of divorce. How can people even understand it if we have these problems? I know my colleagues across the floor here understand that we have to keep the government offices open so marriage licences can be dispensed.

Mr. Speaker, if this bill is passed and we have a confrontation in this province, people will be denied the right to have a divorce — the opportunity to have a divorce in this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is all extremely entertaining, but I will remind the member that he is speaking to an anticipated action that is not contained in this bill. To be technical, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) was asked to decline comments with respect to excluded employees and I think the member for Atlin would now be discussing excluded employees as well. We must be fair. If the minister was asked to withdraw that type of statement, or not make them, then....

MR. PASSARELL: I will leave divorce and go on to names. If this bill is passed — which will probably happen today — and there is a confrontation in the province, how will...? Let's say a picket line is put up around the government office: how will parents be able to register the names of their children? This is important because it is really unfair to allow children not to have names. I could see the problems that parents would have if this bill is passed and they have a newborn baby, and they can't register the name of the child at the government office in the great white north. Let's say you wanted to send a coupon in to win a prize or something and you don't have a name for your child. So it is not fair if this bill passes. We have to talk about delaying this bill until after Christmas.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we're off the hoist. We are now to the bill, please. Hypothetical arguments really would have to be viewed as being out of order. We have a very specific bill before us, and I would ask the member to speak to the principle of the items. There are many of them within this bill.

MR. PASSARELL: Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the fundamental thrust of Bill 2 is to narrow the scope of collective bargaining of unions covered by the Public Service Labour Relations Act? A key point in this bill is that the bill does not equalize conditions as between private sector and public sector organized workers. Unions certified under the Labour Code can bargain hours of work, working conditions, but rather than manage the public service through collective bargaining, the government has chosen to take the easy but confrontational route of restrictive legislation by bringing in Bill 2.

The bill itself, and the government bringing forward this bill, is in my opinion deliberately attempting a showdown between the public sector unions, for one specific reason: that is, partisan political purposes. The government is in essence scapegoating the public service in general, and the BCGEU in particular, for reasons which make no sense whatsoever. We don't need any kind of confrontation at this stage of our fragile economy. Bill 2 does exactly that. They are attempting, to a certain extent, to portray public service workers as a privileged class, as I heard in debate when we discussed the education bill. That makes no sense whatsoever when you look at the logic of it because with this bill they are trying to strip the public sector workers of rights that are held by organized workers in the private sector. One of the things that I find distressing with the bill is what is happening today about bargaining in good faith. People across this province

[ Page 2566 ]

are seeing the broken provisions aspect of the current collective bargaining agreement, such as the obligation to consult with the union prior to introducing legislation changes.

I think it can be summed up that Bill 2 represents nothing less than an admission of failure to manage on the part of this government. What they're saying is that they can't bargain under the same terms and conditions as faced by employers in the private sector. It is an attempt by this government to deprive public sector workers of bargaining rights held by unions certified under the Labour Code. What it really boils down to is that they want to dictate, not negotiate. Bill 2 will affect a number of public sector workers in jurisdictions in this province — employees of school boards, hospitals, colleges and Crown corporations.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nonsense!

MR. PASSARELL: That's what it does, Mr. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Public service, not public sector.

MR. PASSARELL: The public sector workers are not employees of school boards?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No.

MR. PASSARELL: What are they?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Public sector.

MR. PASSARELL: Hospitals, colleges and Crown corporations. The bill repeals section 13 of the act, the content of collective agreements, and basically eliminates the power of the union in collective bargaining. It eliminates that aspect of collective bargaining.

In the bill itself, section 1 is basically the content of collective agreement and some of the deletion clauses which will happen if this bill passes. One of the things that have come up in the last few months — particularly in section 13(l)(a) of the current act — the PSLRA — provides that collective agreements should not affect the principle of merit in appointment and promotion for public service employees. In practice this clause has been interpreted to mean the application of merit principle can be bargained, and this has been reflected in the collective agreements. The new section of this bill will allow a collective agreement and shall not deal with methods of recruitment to the public service, whether from within or without the public service. In essence, this will free the government to appoint widely from outside the public service and should be seen as a clear attempt to undermine the professional public service and restore a patronage system in this province. An example I can give you quickly is the Tozer affair.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, we want more bare facts?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 2, please.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, after I mentioned the Tozer affair, the member said it was a relative. No, it's not a relative.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: That's what I heard you say, my hon. friend from Surrey. It is not a relative, Mr. Speaker. But who knows who Tozer is mixed up with? But we'll go on with Bill 2.

[4:30]

One of the aspects I talked about in my introduction is that the amendment will allow for the contracting out of government work in accordance with the privatization thrust of the budget, and strikes down article 24 of the BCGEU agreement dealing with this issue. In the province of Alberta they allow the contracting out of certain government services, particularly in the highway department. I would certainly hope that it's not the effort of this government through its bills to privatize the Highways ministry and allow private contractors to provide the same services that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways provides. I think in some regards — and this would have to be looked at stringently in, I think, Committee of the Whole House — maybe in a metropolitan area this might be a successful application of the principles that you brought forward in the throne speech. But I think when you start looking in the rural areas of this province, contracting out of Highways maintenance could be disastrous. The Alberta principle started in the metropolitan area, and I would certainly hope that the new amendment in this bill would not allow contracting of government work in the Highways ministry, which I am the critic for.

In conclusion here, because I know my hon. friend from Point Grey.... It's pretty late for him; I know we've been up all night, and I'd like to get the debate over with, if possible.

There are a couple of examples from George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO, who made some statements regarding some of the problems the United States found on a similar bill back in 1935, in which public sector employees were denied the right of private employees when it came to labour codes, and how the action itself — and I'm quoting from an article called "Union Leaders and Public Sector Unions" — caused a certain sense of second-class citizenship in the workplace by allowing private sector employees to have certain advantages over public sector employees.

We've debated this bill through the night, and I think in conclusion I would have to say that listening to the debate last night for about 26 hours.... Maybe it's getting close to 30 hours that we have spent discussing Bill 2. I've seen some aspects that I find particularly offensive, in the carrying out of some of our legislative duties. I'd have to say on behalf of the official opposition that we will be opposing Bill 2, the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1983. Hopefully the government, before it starts a confrontation in this province between its citizens and itself, would have a second look. Rethink what you're trying to do with this bill, because nobody needs or wants a strike, and don't push people into comers, as you're only going to find them coming out kicking and causing more problems for this province. What we don't need is more problems at this stage.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'm under no illusion that anything I might have to say will have any influence on dissuading the government from its course. It hasn't exhibited any intention or desire of doing that up until now on items before the House. Nonetheless, one needs to say those things that are necessary.

[ Page 2567 ]

There was a time when we had no collective bargaining for people employed in the public service. In fact, there was a very denigrating term used to identify people working for the government: they were called civil servants. Its origin was in the dim past, when the British Master and Servant Act was the prevalent piece of labour-management legislation, if one could call it labour-management legislation. But it gave sole and supreme authority to the master, and no power or rights of any nature to the servant. That was the origin of even the words "civil servant, " and that term was used for too long in this province and for too long in this nation, up until about ten years ago.

During the time that there was no collective bargaining arrangement for people employed in the public service, it operated on the basis of the master and servant concept. If there were increases in incomes to people employed in the public service, it was a discretionary matter of the cabinet, often employed just prior to an election, for obvious reasons having nothing whatever to do with the level of income of people in the public employ or any justification except straight politics. That was an unfortunate set of circumstances, but it did exist for a long period of time.

Collective bargaining in the public service in one sense can be isolated because of the peculiarities of the relationship between employer and employee, and who the employer is, both immediate and ultimate, and also because it can be connected to collective bargaining as it developed outside of the public service. I think it's necessary to look at that very briefly. Collective bargaining developed in the private sector, as it was called, after many long years of struggle and difficulty and trouble, and always unsupported by law until after it had been established, after the bloodshed had taken place and the misery had been gone through. Then government stepped in and said: "Now that you've won those rights, we'll give some legal structure to the way they're going to function." We saw that happen in this province in the immediate post-Second World War period, when the original federal order-in-council under some wartime legislation which set up a structured relationship for collective bargaining was to expire. The provincial government moved into the field and said: "Here's what we're going to do provincially." It was called the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, or ICA Act. It underwent a number of changes over the years, but it always excluded people in the public employ. They were outside of what was available to other employees and other employers in this province.

We are now taking a move backwards in time. I'm the first to admit — others have said it; I'm not using it in the sense that this is an original thought that nobody else has had in mind — without any difficulty in saying it, and with an understanding of what's involved, that we do need to have a differently structured arrangement for collective bargaining in the public service than we do in the private sector.

As I said earlier, the employer is different. The employer in the public service does not have profit as his objective; he has service. The private employer's primary reason for operating is profit, and he seeks to attain that. His investment program is for profit at some time in the future. There's no question about that at all. That's not so in the public service. If a lockout takes place in the private sector, the purpose of the lockout is for the employer to bring some economic leverage against his employees, to get them to agree to his proposal with respect to a collective agreement. If a strike takes place in the private sector, the purpose is the reverse: the attempt on the part of the employees, in the marketplace philosophy that this government subscribes to, is to exert some leverage by saying: "We are going to cut into your productive capacity, deny you, the employer, the opportunity to produce and sell and thus earn income. It's our last hope to get a collective agreement."

In the public service, if a lockout takes place by the government, the ultimate employer who pays the bills is the person who experiences the difficulty. If a strike takes place in the public service, or any segment of it, it's the ultimate employer, the taxpayer, who sees the difficulties. The immediate employer, the government, does not. It might see some shortfall in income, say, if an income-producing segment of the public service is locked out or on strike such as the ferry service or the liquor stores. They are income-generating elements within government. So by and large there is this difference. We need to have, in my view, a different set of arrangements for collective bargaining.

The development of collective bargaining has been slow and tortuous and fraught with misery, both by employers and employees, both by companies and unions, both by government and employees in the public service. Even when they were called civil servants there was still discontent because they didn't have any rights and didn't have any position. And the growth of it has been fraught with trouble.

MS. SANFORD: And bloodshed.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, and tremendous bloodshed. I mentioned that earlier. I'm not passing over the importance of that. That occurred, and it may occur again. We have no way of knowing that. I'm not forecasting or advocating anything. We have no way of knowing what tensions may develop in the future. But this is the wrong way to go about dealing with the desirability of establishing a structured relationship of collective bargaining within the public service that is suitable to the peculiarities of that employee-employer relationship.

You don't go about making the alteration by way of a bludgeon, by way of the employer, who is also the lawmaker, saying: "I'm going to take off my employer's coat and put on my lawmaker's coat, and I'm going to decide unilaterally what system is going to prevail, so that when I take off my lawmaker's coat and put on my employer's coat I'll have it there to be able to deal with these people in the public service." That is the wrong way to go about the development of something as complex as this — complex because there were complexities in its growth, complex because of the various factors and forces that are involved throughout it.

[4:45]

We need to develop more than the unilateral bludgeoning approach that's being proposed in this particular bill — the cooperative approach, the sensible, rational, communicating approach to the development of law. It isn't a one-sided activity. The government as employer or lawmaker is not the sole participant. Thousands of people in this province are employed in the public service, and they are involved and will be affected. A much more decent and respectful way, I submit, is for government — who is also the lawmaker, the arbitrator — to invite the public employees directly or through their union, or however they want to be represented in that, to sit down at a conference to seek and find ways and means where you can arrive at something mutually agreeable if at all possible. But if you don't try that mutually agreeable approach, you're not going to accomplish it.

[ Page 2568 ]

Mr. Speaker, there was, some 2,500 years ago in China, a famous general, Sun Tze or Sun Tzu, depending on how the pronunciation of that name would have altered over the years, who wrote a volume called The Art of War; at least it's classified that way in the English language. It not only dealt with war in the sense of tribal or state wars — one with the other — it dealt with human relationships. One of the expressions of Sun Tzu that was fundamental to his approach where there are conflicting interests.... I quote his words from memory; therefore they may not be precisely accurate, but the essence is there. He said the objective in war — whether with another state or internally, politically within the court or something of that sort — is to win over your opponent by capturing his heart. And you don't do that by bludgeoning him into the ground. You don't do that by destroying his sense of self-respect and self-esteem. You don't do that by the one-sided bulldozer approach of saying: "Get out of the way. This is the way it's going to be." You seek to win him over to your side by winning his heart, by winning his conviction that both of you — government and employees — are headed in the right direction, and are headed in that direction as a result of a mutually acceptable and a mutually developed course of action. Cooperation is what will get us there. Cooperation is what will establish some peaceful relationships in this province, not confrontation.

Unity of mind, of purpose, between government and its employees insofar as the public service is concerned is what will develop a conscience and self-esteem in the public service that will serve this province for a long time to come if we start off doing it on the proper base of mutual acceptance of each other's position and an attempt to find a unified and mutually agreeable approach. This way will leave misery, suffering and hard feelings, and while the government may have its way, and have its day, it won't have a very acceptable future.

Now as I said at the beginning, I doubt that anything that I have to say or my views about this are going to influence anybody on the other side of the House. Its purpose maybe was not that so much, because this chamber has come not to be a debating arena, where the cut and thrust of debate and the ideas that one expresses may be influential, or where one may be influenced by ideas expressed by the other side, and come to change a point of view. That doesn't exist in this chamber. The debate is one-sided, unfortunately. So I have no illusions that anything I say, regardless of its merit or lack of merit, is going to influence government. I needed to say it for my own sake, perhaps more than anything.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I assume that normal procedure at this time would be for the Provincial Secretary to close debate. He will be in the chamber in a moment, Mr. Speaker, but in the meantime I'd like to take my place to support second reading of Bill 2, as not the draconian measures that have been described in this Legislature over the last many, many hours of debate about this bill, but rather as a tool with which the ministry and the government will be allowed to manage its affairs in the most expeditious and efficient manner — and fair — to the employees to whom we are responsible.

It's been very convenient for the members opposite to use all kinds of extravagant language, calling the government various names, which I wouldn't repeat in this Legislature, but which are rather misleading, and certainly very insulting. As the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet) commented in earlier debate, I believe on the hoist motion, it is insulting for one group of people to indicate that another group of people in a democratic society, in a democratic Legislature, agree with the democratic process in some lesser degree than that group opposite. We are very fortunate to live in a society in which democracy is paramount. This Legislature, at most times, is a good example of that. I believe in democracy, I believe in this Legislature, and I believe in the opportunity that we're making available to manage our affairs for the people of British Columbia in a way in which they told us they wanted us to manage on May 5.

Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary will, of course, be outlining many of the misconceptions that have been put forward in this debate regarding what this bill really means, and what the opportunities will be for fairness, for consultation, for cooperation, and for an orderly and reasonable way in which the public service of this province is managed.

With those few words, Mr. Speaker, I support Bill 2.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 42, the House is advised that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, it's been a long time coming. Almost 27 hours ago I opened debate on this particular bill, and I've been here consistently for the last 27 hours with the exception of a dinner and a lunch break. That's more than I can say about the opposition, because most of them were in bed last night. Those who didn't sleep last night were sleeping this morning.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. minister. To the bill, please.

MR. HOWARD: Don't be jealous just because the Premier keeps you up all night while he sleeps.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we have that loudmouthed member for Skeena interfering again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Withdraw. Hon. members, a personal reference....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I withdraw, Mr. Speaker, but would you maintain some order with that member over there?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will, but I would think that probably some of the interjections might cease if the minister would speak to the bill, as other members have done.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, in opening debate on this particular bill, I outlined very fully the reasons for the amendment to the Public Service Labour Relations Act. I know the members have had an opportunity of reviewing my statements in opening the debate; therefore I will attempt to be as brief as possible, but will respond to some of the issues that have been raised by members opposite.

I have some great difficulty in responding to the speech made by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), because I really couldn't fathom what he was saying of substance or purport to this particular piece of legislation.

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) brought up the question of the lack of consultation. I want to say that

[ Page 2569 ]

the minute the bill was introduced in the House, I communicated with the B.C. Government Employees' Union and other affiliated public service unions in British Columbia and invited them to my office to discuss this piece of legislation plus another piece of legislation which I am responsible for. I did get the unions into my office to discuss.... I had hoped to discuss the legislation, but it appeared to me that it was more a media event than a consultative process, because the president of the B.C. Government Employees' Union came to my office and read the three- or four-page brief, which I was prepared to discuss with him as well as the legislation, to see whether the legislation could be amended to be more acceptable to the B.C. Government Employees' Union. However, those representatives of the public service unions that came to my office way back in July weren't prepared to discuss with me the substance of this legislation. They immediately walked out after having read their brief; they weren't prepared to consult. My response to that is that my door continues to be open to the B.C. Government Employees' Union and other public service unions here in the province,

I had a brief meeting here a day or two ago with representatives of the B.C. Government Employees' Union. I met with them for one hour, and that was in response to the open-door policy that I put in place from the time the legislation was first introduced in this House. So to suggest that there has been no consultation, that there hasn't been an open-door policy, is to be ignorant of the facts.

The members opposite talked about my suggesting that the legislation is unique. I did use that word in my opening statement on this legislation. It is unique because it addresses specific legislation dealing with the public service of British Columbia. There are other provinces — and the national government as well — that have specific legislation dealing with their public servants. I am saying that I was appalled by some of the statements of the members last night and this morning in which they suggested.... The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) indicated that really there was no need for this special legislation for the public service of British Columbia. They felt that the Labour Relations Act should be sufficient, that you don't need two pieces of legislation, that they should be under the same rules in British Columbia.

I listened very attentively to that point of view. The matter they seem to forget is that the Public Service Labour Relations Act came into being in 1973, when that particular party over there happened to be government for that short period of time in the history of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Short but disastrous.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That is a very accurate and authentic statement about the few years that that particular party was in office.

They say that there is no need for the Public Service Labour Relations Act even though they introduced the legislation in this House and they all voted for it; now they are saying there is no need for it. They have a split personality, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: North Island maybe voted against it, but the members I talked about here — Alberni, Comox and Rossland-Trail — voted for it. I believe North Island voted against it; I am talking about those who are here. Then they go on to say that the legislation essentially destroys collective bargaining in the public service. That's absolute nonsense; it clarifies collective bargaining in the public service.

[5:00]

They say it is undemocratic and is going to destroy democracy in British Columbia. What a bunch of nonsense, Mr. Speaker! Then the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) says, of all things, that pension matters should be negotiable. I don't think he has read the Public Service Labour Relations Act as it was before and as it is now. It essentially exempts pensions from being a bargainable item. That was the legislation that you voted for, in the old days so many years ago when you were Minister of Highways in British Columbia. Do you remember those bad old days? You voted for that legislation, and now you are saying that you are against it.

MR. LEA: That's right. That's the difference between you and me — I change my mind with new facts.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You change your mind from day to day, my friend.

Now the member for Rossland-Trail talked about when the regulations were introduced. "We wonder what the regulations will say." Well, there is nothing in this legislation that suggests that there are going to be regulations. I wish that member and some of the other members over there would only read the legislation and be informed. Don't come up here with erroneous facts about the legislation. There will be an amendment to Bill 2, and that is because of the fact that we don't want to violate the collective agreement, because we believe in the sanctity of contracts.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a long debate, but I want to say that essentially it is a simple bill. It is not as complicated and convoluted and draconian as the members of the opposition might lead you to believe. The bill really does two things. It clarifies those matters intended to be rights of the Crown. It does no more and no less; in that respect there is no change. Secondly, it exempts from bargaining the authority of the Public Service Commission, and rightfully so, because the Public Service Commission chairman is answerable to the Legislature. He is not answerable to the government; he is answerable to the Legislature. Why shouldn't his authority be preserved?

We are saying that the right of the employer has been very dramatically eroded in recent years through arbitration. The Labour Relations Board is saying that the employer should have the right to manage, and that is what this legislation addresses: the right to manage; the right of the employer to determine scheduling of work, how many employees will be working and what times they will go to work. This legislation will allow the employer to determine when the employees go to work. Isn't that the role of the employer? Are you suggesting over there — I think I heard that; not in these words, but nevertheless — that if the employer, the Crown, the provincial government, suggests that it is necessary to have employees working at 9, the employees or the bargaining agent for the employees should be able to say that they should go to work at 12? We say that the employer, just like in the private

[ Page 2570 ]

sector, should have the right of determining the schedule as to when employees go to work.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, we don't. That has been eroded by arbitration.

This legislation does not necessarily do away with flextime, as has been suggested across the way. Flextime can be worked out between the employer and the employee.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, flextime will continue to be there at the option of and for efficiency on the part of the employer. Flextime will continue. Flextime will continue to be available to the public service of British Columbia; I am saying that to you. It will continue to be there. There is no intention within the legislation to restrict those significant negotiable matters such as hours of work, salary, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment. Essentially this legislation really clarifies once and for all what the original intent of the legislation was — what it was back in 1973, with slight modifications.

I am appalled by the opposition, after having listened to so many boring hours of repetition here since 2:30 p.m. yesterday afternoon. They apparently don't want to hear from the minister. They want to close debate; they keep telling me to press on and move second reading. Because the minister had to stay here for all those long hours and he is tired, and because of the fact that in a democratic system of parliament, Mr. Speaker, those members will have ample opportunity to cross-examine that little Provincial Secretary toe to toe in the committee stage — ample opportunity, virtually unlimited debate, until they get repetitious, maybe.... Under those circumstances I have no alternative but to move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 9

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

[5:15]

Bill 2, Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1983, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

GASOLINE (COLOURED) TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. MR. CURTIS: I rise to move second reading now of Bill 14, the Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Amendment Act, 1983. The changes to the Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Act introduced by this bill on July 7, and House amendments which are before all hon. members, address a problem involving the taxation of marked bunker fuel. I would like to take a few moments to state the position of the government in this regard.

Currently the tax rate on marine marked bunker fuel is linked to the tax rate on clear gasoline. The House will know that "marked bunker fuel" is the term used in the bill. However, since it refers to fuel sold in the marine market, it goes by the common designation "marine bunker fuel." Therefore I would like to use that term throughout these remarks, notwithstanding the title of the act.

The present tax rate on marine bunker fuel equals the clear gasoline tax rate, less 2.64 cents per litre. A problem has arisen with this system of taxation in that the tax on clear gasoline is indexed to the change in retail gasoline prices in Vancouver, whereas the market for marine bunker fuel has little in common with the market for automobile gasoline. It is quite possible that even though prices and taxes on gasoline are rising, the price of marine bunker fuel remains stable or actually declines. So situations have arisen where the tax rate on marine bunker fuel has risen at a time when the selling price of the product has remained steady or actually declined. This bill therefore addresses the problem and introduces a per-litre tax on marine bunker fuel which breaks the link with the tax on clear gasoline. Instead, the tax on marine bunker will be based on 20 percent of the selling price of this product. A quarterly survey of marine bunker fuel prices will be used, and the tax will rise or fall consistent with these regular survey prices.

The government believes that the new tax will help to provide the bunkering industry with the opportunity to make sales of marine bunker fuel competitive with other jurisdictions. Therefore, effective last July 7 at midnight, and until September 30 last, the tax was established at 3.54 cents per litre; as of October 1, 1983, and until December 31 the tax is to be 3.60 cents per litre. There is an amendment which addresses those particular dates, Mr. Speaker. Thereafter, as I indicated, it will be established quarterly at a rate determined by formula which is in the legislation. These rates are lower than those which would have been in place if we had left it alone and if the tax rate for bunker fuel had remained linked to that of clear gasoline.

A related amendment to the Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Act clarifies a problem associated with the provincial tax applied to marine bunker fuel. The existing legislation does not clearly enable the province to collect tax in situations where marine bunker is purchased and delivered outside the

[ Page 2571 ]

province by agents acting as between the producers and the ultimate user, the ship. Therefore fuel purchased in the United States and then transported into British Columbia to be loaded onto ships has not been taxed, resulting in unfair competition for local suppliers of this product. To prevent this, the bill provides for the elimination of this difficulty by requiring that the tax be collected from those who purchase and arrange for the physical transfer of bunker fuel to ships within the province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: A question has been asked across the floor, and I would be happy to answer that either in closing debate or in committee stage, whichever is deemed more appropriate by the Chair.

I move second reading of Bill 14.

MR. STUPICH: I'll just say briefly that the opposition is won over by the minister's arguments, but notes that one member in the government caucus intends to oppose this legislation; so we reserve the right to change our position in the event that he convinces us. May I say also that the last time that particular member spoke on a bill he proved by his remarks that he hadn't read it, so we are going to listen pretty carefully this time to see whether he is talking about the one the minister's talking about.

The opposition will support it at this point, Mr. Speaker.

MR. DAVIS: Whether the opposition changes its mind or not, I believe there's a strong case for at least amending this bill. The case relates basically to jobs in this province, and to the viability of our ports. We are talking about a 20 to 22 percent sales tax, a tax the yield of which will go up and down, as the minister said, with the price of fuel used, in this case by ships. I think the level of tax should be identical with the tax charged other industries in this province — the pulp mills, for example — which is the social security tax level, currently 7 percent. If the social security tax rate changes, then the rate on heavy residual oil used by pulp mills will go up and down, has gone up and down; and I would argue that the same tax should apply to ships which are bunkering in our ports.

We're not talking exclusively about foreign vessels; we're talking about all shipping. We're talking about the tug and barge industry in this province, and so on. We're talking about a levy of a kind that doesn't exist in neighbouring states in the United States. In other words, the user of fuels for ships, tugs, whatever, in this province currently pays a penalty, a tax, which makes the price of the fuel they use 20 percent higher — it has been of the order of 25 percent — than the price paid for fuel by ships, tugs, other coastal and ocean-going vessels taking on fuel in Washington state, and, indeed, up and down the west coast of the United States and Alaska. This is a cost which we don't need.

It has another effect. What it does is divert vessels coming and going to an American port in order to bunker, in order to take on fuel. Currently, shipping coming into the port of Vancouver bunkers at Port Angeles to avoid the provincial tax, a provincial tax which adds in the order of 21 percent, formerly in the order of 25 percent, to the cost of fuel. A foreign, or indeed a Canadian vessel, is not going to take on fuel in a British Columbia port, because of the provincial tax.

There's a history to this and a rationale, a reason why we've got this high tax level. During the 1960s, in search of revenue, the government of the day decided to put a tax on fuel being supplied to shipping coming to and going from our ports. That tax was of the order of 2 or 3 percent, although it was under the anomalous title of coloured gasoline, and it was not an ad valorem tax. Nevertheless, it was of the order of 2 or 3 percent of the boarded value of the fuel and therefore didn't have a substantial effect on where you took on fuel.

The government of Canada, in its wisdom, brought in a national energy policy that held down or slowed the rise of oil prices internally in Canada. Canada became the haven for jets and ships bunkering. They came to Canada because they could take on fuel at the lower Canadian price, as opposed to the world price. The federal government woke up to that happening about 18 months after it began, and put on a countervailing or offsetting tax to mop up the difference. The province, which had had a small tax, immediately responded and set an equally high countervailing tax, which we still have — or which will be eliminated by this new legislation. The federal government backed off and eventually backed right out of the field, and we're left with this high tax, which has been set and which now disregards the fact that the internal price of oil in Canada has been steadily rising toward the world price. We're now left with an impost in this province that means that this is not the place to fuel up. The cost of fuel is 21 percent more. The diesel oil, and certainly the heavy oil, is priced on a west-coast-of-North-America basis, and in many more years than not it's one of the lowest priced markets for heavy oil in the world. It's the place to fuel up. It's the place where Japanese colliers coming for coal in Prince Rupert would bunker and take on fuel if they could buy it at a world price. We are perpetuating through this legislation a 20 or 21 percent ad valorem tax.

The concern that spent nearly $1 million investigating a bunkering operation in Prince Rupert has backed off, first because of the indifference of the province, certainly of the Finance ministry, and now this new legislation. If there were no tax, or if the tax were of the order of the social service tax, perhaps 7 percent — hopefully less in years to come — then the bunkering operation would begin and continue there. It would revive in the port of Vancouver. Vessels coming in and waiting for grain, or whatever, would bunker here.

I notice in the various revisions of the tax the legislation gets away from the old, anomalous title of coloured gasoline, and is now focusing on fuel for ships and on use. I think that's desirable. It also now includes diesel oil, either used separately or mixed with bunker oil. So it adds to the coverage of this tax and its impact on bunkering. Secondly, it covers a loophole, as the minister called it: ship's oil, picked up say at Port Angeles or Seattle and brought into the port of Vancouver by barge and offloaded from the barge directly onto a foreign ship. That fuel doesn't actually touch land in British Columbia. It's perhaps goods in transit, or in bond, but the provincial tax regime has been changed to catch that import. I think that is unconstitutional. I think the province is endeavouring to tax international trade, and I think that case could be pleaded in court. Indeed, if I were the federal authorities, I would be inclined to pursue this route.

Another concern I would have if I was on the federal end of this issue would be the new cruise ship facility in Vancouver, because those cruise ships are not going to bunker in Vancouver. They are currently bunkering in Port Angeles. If I were promoting a cruise ship facility in Seattle I would say:

[ Page 2572 ]

"Great! British Columbia is giving us one more card to play, perhaps not a trump card, but another argument for having cruise ships based, or at least calling, in the Seattle area." The federal government is investing $140 million or $150 million in a new cruise ship facility. So I would say that what the province has embarked upon doing through this particular bill is counter to a substantial investment that the taxpayers of Canada are making in the port of Vancouver in the form of a brand-new, expensive — indeed, luxurious and exceptional — cruise ship facility.

[5:30]

Mr. Speaker, I think there are reasons why this bill should not be supported. There are reasons, at least, why it should be amended. There are good reasons why we should reduce the rate of tax to a rate which doesn't have a substantial impact on where vessels take on their fuel. I would like to think that we or the Finance minister would accept an amendment which would say that this tax was the same percentage, ad valorem, as the social services tax. Substantially that's my case, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot think that the province has thought this through in terms of job impact. If you want to have a world port, you have a bunkering capability. A bunkering capability includes being able to deliver oil at competitive prices, whether it's heavy bunker oil, diesel oil or a mixture of the two. We're denying the port of Vancouver — and potentially the port of Prince Rupert and other ports — that opportunity. I think it is ridiculous. It is a reflection of the fact that this Legislature, this government and this province have never paid much attention to shipping. It doesn't really focus on ocean-going shipping — I'd say "at all" — if this is an indication of its awareness of business and job opportunities and what you have to have in ports to attract shipping, to hold shipping and to service shipping.

If we're going to maintain vessels, if we're going to be able to service vessels of all types and sizes in our ports, this is the kind of thing we do not do. We don't tax away what is one of the most elementary functions of major ports — namely, bunkering. I've talked to the shipping industry, the oil industry and to several of the ministries here. I know the Energy ministry basically thinks we should have the same level of tax on heavy fuel oils of the type used by ships as are imposed on other industries in this province — namely, the pulp and paper mills. For instance, MacMillan Bloedel pay 7 percent at Harmac. Why not the same 7 percent rate for ships coming and going?

So, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a good case for an amendment to this legislation. I think the old tax regime was wrong — the coloured gasoline concept was ill-suited to the situation. But the level of tax is ridiculous. We should get it down to a level which is tolerable and a matter of some indifference to the shipping industry as to where they take on bunker fuel.

My final point is this: if this is a measure related to the budget, it has to be a measure which is related to the income of the treasury. I contend, and there are lots of people who will back me up, who will say: if this measure persists, there won't be any bunkering here, hence no income to the treasury anyway. So it doesn't make any sense from the point of view of either the Ministry of Finance or employment or port development, or for federal-provincial relations. So, personally, I am going to vote against this legislation unless it is amended.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for North Vancouver–Seymour for all of the work that he has obviously done on this piece of legislation.

I know that the city and port of Prince Rupert have the same concerns that the minister has. I have to admit that I'm not versed enough to know whether the minister or the member is correct. If you look at the formula in this, it's a pretty complicated thing for a lay person to understand. I would actually like to hear the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) speak on this too. I believe he's had some meetings with interested parties, and maybe he could offer the Legislature some advice. I think that we're probably all in the same position; I'd say that there are only one or two people in this House who really understand what we're voting on here. I don't think we should make a mistake. If we can't come to an agreement on which is the best way to go, then it would be better to hold off for a while. As I say, I'd like to hear what the economic development minister has to say, to see whether he's satisfied that what the member for North Vancouver–Seymour says is not accurate and won't take place. I have to say that the arguments put forth by the hon. member are pretty darn convincing — that it looks like a mug's game to go ahead with this in terms of economic benefits to the province. Unless there are arguments contrary that convince me otherwise, I'll not be voting with my caucus either and will be voting with the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief words on this bill. I didn't intend to stand up and speak on this measure, but in view of the remarks of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, I thought I would say a few words.

About three and a half months ago, just prior to the House going into session, I received a phone call from someone who's very much involved in the shipping industry in British Columbia. I suppose I didn't pay that much attention at that time. We'd just come off losing an election, and we knew the House was going into session. But he spent some time explaining to me the detrimental effects of this legislation. At the time I had no idea this legislation — and I don't think he did either; he may have known, I'm not sure — was coming into the House. So I didn't think too much about the detrimental effects this legislation could have on the shipping industry in British Columbia. I listened to the minister's opening remarks very carefully and, as my colleague from Prince Rupert just pointed out, I'm not convinced. I hope, in closing debate on this bill, the minister will explain the reasoning for bringing this bill in. Surely it can't be just a simple tax measure.

One of the things that happens.... Well, as a matter of fact, I don't think I'll get into that, because I think the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, in terms of the shipping industry, I think addressed those questions very carefully. While I haven't had the opportunity, on the face of it.... I was intending to vote for this bill. But on reflection I'm having serious second thoughts about this — I truly am. I hope that the minister, after he closes second reading on this bill — which he will — will consult during committee stage with some people, and perhaps with his colleagues in caucus, which would be a good start, and perhaps bring in the appropriate amendments. I really hope that the minister will do that.

[ Page 2573 ]

MR. LAUK: The comments by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour should be put in perspective. He used at least one of the arguments that I had raised with respect to the social services tax. And I'm wondering why the hon. member didn't rise to his feet then and say that raising the social services tax would not increase revenue to the government, because clearly, since this package of legislation has been introduced, the economy has slumped and consumer buying has slumped in the province of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that's not contained in this bill.

MR. LAUK: Certainly it is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Be specific to the Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Amendment Act.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, you're getting a little bit trigger-happy. I'm obviously drawing the same analogy on the same arguments used by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. I'm wondering why, if he's so upset about foreign ships not being able to bunker at reasonable prices on our coastline, he didn't stand up and speak on behalf of the people of the province of British Columbia, who are being taxed half to death by this government. He seems ready and willing to defend foreign shipowners, but he's not ready and willing to stand up for the people of North Vancouver–Seymour and defend them when they're being overtaxed. That's the comment I wanted to make on his speech under this bill.

MRS. WALLACE: I just have a couple of things that I wanted to raise under this bill. First of all, as I understand the Minister of Finance, and certainly as I read the bill, this is a tax reduction. For that reason, when it is salted in among all the other bills that are tax increases, it seems to be at least one bright spot. Now the member for North Vancouver–Seymour seems to be telling us that it's not a sufficient reduction. But a reduction of any kind is better than no reduction or an increase. So I think that if it is a reduction, we have to go along with it. If it's not a sufficient reduction, maybe we should be looking at that. Maybe there should be more consideration. I'm not prepared to deal with that. That's something the member for North Vancouver- Seymour and the Minister of Finance will have to settle.

But I do have a concern, and it's a very simple concern. This bill was filed on July 7, and apparently it is so badly drafted that we now, months later — not until October, I believe — have amendments to the bill filed that are almost as extensive as the bill itself. It concerns me because this bill is, of course, retroactive. What I would like to have the minister explain and make very clear when he closes debate is whether or not any difficulties have occurred — any improper collections of this tax during that period of retroactivity prior to the time that this bill was being called — as a result of the fact that there are so many changes being made in an apparent attempt to clarify what the bill really says.

I'm wondering, in view of that, Mr. Speaker, and in view of the remarks from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, whether or not the Minister of Finance would be prepared to discharge the bill and reintroduce it in a different form. I would certainly like his comments on that when he closes the debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister closes debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to deal first with the last question from the member for Cowichan-Malahat, no, the government is not prepared to discharge this bill. It was a bill introduced on budget day and forms part of a series relative to tax measures.

I'm aware of the concern that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour has in this respect. I certainly appreciate his right to stand in his place and comment on the situation as he sees it. I hope that I can make the next statement without interjection: it is a complex matter. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to be an expert on this subject — let me make that quite clear at this point in time — and I don't think that I am alone in that regard.

There has been extensive consultation — and I won't table this material, because I am not going to quote from it — with those engaged in bunkering, with those who provide bunker fuel and with those who have taken a position on one side or the other on this particular issue.

I feel that the member for North Vancouver- Seymour has painted a bleaker picture with respect to the impact of this amendment act than will prove to be the case. Having said that, I think I would like to quote from a very simple listing of the volumes sold in the port of Vancouver. I don't have that information readily available for Prince Rupert, Mr. Member, but we can see that there have been dramatic changes in the volumes over the past several years. In 1978 in the port of Vancouver 224 million litres were sold in the Vancouver area market; in 1979 it was up slightly to 246 million litres; in 1980 it was 480 million litres; in 1981 it was 758 million litres, and in 1982 it was 500 million litres. The number of ships varied relatively little, when one reflects on the volumes I have just cited for the House. The number of ships in 1978 — 2,370; 1979 — 2,291; 1980 — 2,452; 1981 — 2,551; 1982 — 2,645, including foreign coast-wise movement. So there is quite a significant shift in the volume of marine bunker sold in the Vancouver market, and it would be fair to say that there would be a comparable shift in Prince Rupert.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It's also interesting, though, to track the marine bunker prices as quoted in U.S. metric tonnes. If it is the wish of the House, I could table this document. I've noted on previous occasions that it's rather difficult to read a graph into the record, but I would be happy to table it.

The tracking of the price in Vancouver, in Seattle and in Los Angeles is relatively close in the period 1978 to the latest available date in 1983.

AN HON. MEMBER: And this will bring it closer.

HON. MR. CURTIS: This will probably close the gap.

I think there is a view in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources that perhaps some other approach could be taken, but that also has been canvassed over the course of the last number of months prior to budget day and certainly since — at the staff and at the official level.

There are supplies of heavy fuel oil in Vancouver, but they are now significantly below the peak levels of 1981. Supplies have always been below potential demand. The current sales

[ Page 2574 ]

volume is similar to those in 1978 and 1979, which were very healthy years in terms of shipping activity.

[5:45]

Many factors affect the availability of the product, quite apart from the tax levied on it prior to the introduction of this amendment act or since. I'm sure members will know — indeed there are those who know better than I — that marine bunker is a form of heavy fuel oil, which is also used in the industrial market, primarily in the forest industry but not exclusively; so we see the stresses there — or lack of stress in that particular activity — depending on how the forest industry is functioning. As a result, as industrial demand increases it can reduce the supplies available for the marine market and vice versa. As a layman, I understand that heavy fuel also is a byproduct of the refining process, so it is also affected by the demand for other products, such as gasoline.

The demand for gasoline declined significantly in 1982, and this led to a significant reduction in the production of heavy fuel oil all across the country. Heavy fuel is also influenced, as we would know, by the demand for asphalt in Canada and the United States, and in the United States the recent demand for asphalt has been particularly strong as a result of a summer road repair and maintenance program.

To the best of my ability and knowledge, Vancouver has never been a major bunkering port on the west coast of North America. Even in the peak years, which I referred to at the outset of these remarks, less than 50 percent of the deep-sea ships entering the harbour actually bunkered there. So the fact is that when one looks at the pattern, domestic production is insufficient to meet potential demand, irrespective of the rate of tax which applies at the particular moment.

Because of the complexity of this, I have made the decision, notwithstanding the fact that the government will proceed with this amendment act which is now before us, that I will continue to keep all avenues open with respect to submissions and recommendations from the industry, from coastal shipping firms and from other ministries which have an interest in this. By January 31 next I will have a more up-to-date view of the situation as a result of the tax change which became effective last July 7. It is not, I assure the House, a commitment to make a change, but rather to continue the kind of contact which has existed — and these files contain some firms in British Columbia which have welcomed the change, and some firms which do not welcome the change and have made their views abundantly clear.

I believe, on very careful reflection, that the movement away from the coloured gasoline tax structure is appropriate and important at this particular time, and I sense that there is no major argument on that issue. So we are left, therefore, with a division of opinion with respect to the rate of tax which should be charged.

Having said that, and having made that commitment to this House, a commitment which I offer very sincerely, I will move second reading of Bill 14. The dialogue should continue, and as it becomes apparent — if it becomes apparent — with the assistance of interested parties that a change should occur in 1984, then I'm sure that the government would introduce such a change. Having said that, I move second reading of Bill 14, and I'll now table the document I referred to.

Motion approved.

Bill 14, Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Amendment Act, 1983, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to withdraw Motion 30 standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Prior to the adjournment motion, hon. members, the Chair recognizes the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if the House has sent congratulations to Lech Walesa, and I'm wondering if the House Leader wouldn't consider such a motion that the Legislature unanimously congratulates Lech Walesa. I know, as a Polish-Canadian whose ancestry is Polish, I've had some inquiries about whether the House is moved to do so. But I'll leave it to the House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, that is something that again should best be arranged outside this particular approach and could be addressed between the members outside the House.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.