[ Page 5005 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Walters abduction. Mr. Lauk –– 5005

B.C. telephone rate increases. Mr. Nicolson –– 5005

Cruise missile testing. Mr. Skelly –– 5006

Sailing season of Princess Marguerite. Mr. Hanson –– 5006

Mr. Blencoe

Motorcyclist licensing changes. Mr. Passarell –– 5006

Ganges sewer subsidy. Mr. Blencoe –– 5007

Public Service Act (Bill 35). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5007

Mr. Hanson –– 5009

Mr. Lea –– 5015

Mr. Gabelmann –– 5016

Mr. Cocke –– 5019

Mr. Mitchell –– 5020

Mr. Nicolson –– 5022

Ms. Brown –– 5023

Mr. Stupich –– 5026

Tabling Documents –– 5027

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1985

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask your permission to make one introduction and then to make reference to some people who are not here but whom I would like to be here.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That will unfold in a moment, Madam Member.

First of all, there are some of us in this chamber who had time in municipal service and who would remember Jot Palyga, formerly of Trail — the mayor of Trail, 1961 to 1968 — now a resident of Calgary. Mr. and Mrs. Joe Palyga are in the gallery, and I wonder if the House would make them welcome.

I think it would also be appropriate today to acknowledge the success of Steve Skillings and his Victoria rink. Steve Skillings is the skip of the Victoria team representing B.C. They won the Canadian Mixed Curling Championships. Of particular note of interest to the House, perhaps, is that their third, Pat Sanders, is an employee in the Ministry of Finance.

MR. PELTON: In the gallery today are two small businessmen, Mr. Fred Clarke from Mission and Mr. Jack Clarke from Langley. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's a great day for Langley today. We also have visiting with us, for some business in Victoria today, the president-chairman of the British Columbia Chicken Marketing Board, Mr. Dick Sendall, from Langley. I'd like the House to make him welcome.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I also would like the members of the House to join with me today in welcoming a small businessman — from the riding of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. Up until Friday night Trevor Bryden was the president of the Liberal Association in Esquimalt. I'm proud to say that he is joining us today in the gallery as a member of the United Party of British Columbia. I would ask you to join me in welcoming him.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is the new mayor for the city of Nanaimo, Mr. Graeme Roberts, and I would ask the House to welcome him.

MR. LAUK: I rise under standing orders about attendance in the chamber. It's been a long time.

MR. SPEAKER: Not that long. The member knows that this matter has been well canvassed.

Oral Questions

WALTERS ABDUCTION

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Attorney-General as soon as the general tumult subsides. With respect to the kidnapping of one Donald Walters, a citizen of Canada, has the Attorney-General communicated the province's position to the Minister of Justice with respect to the extradition of the pilot and others involved in the kidnapping, including the bondsmen who may have ordered the kidnapping in a foreign jurisdiction — all being a conspiracy to kidnap?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: May I ask why the Attorney-General has not taken it upon himself to insist upon the extradition of persons who have conspired to kidnap within our jurisdiction?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: What?

HON. MR. SMITH: I can't tell you.

MR. LAUK: Why can't you tell me? Is it confidential?

HON. MR. SMITH: In the ordinary course of these matters it takes a little time to review a situation like this and to receive advice. It would be premature to make a comment here, but I will make a comment as soon as I am able to.

MR. LAUK: I thank the Attorney-General. I would also ask the Attorney-General to consider advising the government to approach the Minister of External Affairs. This is the second such incident in Canada. We're being treated as if we're some boonie, where John Wayne can come up and nab one of our citizens whenever the spirit moves him. I would like to ask the government to advise the Minister of External Affairs to make the strongest possible representation to the government of the United States to ensure that some measures be taken in the United States to discourage these bounty hunters from offending the sovereignty of Canada.

BC TELEPHONE RATE INCREASES

MR. NICOLSON: My question is to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. The government of Ontario did intervene in the hearings before the CRTC on B.C. Tel's proposed 15 percent rate hike to residential subscribers. Is this government now prepared to intervene on behalf of its citizens in order to avoid this embarrassing situation, where another provincial government has to plead for the citizens of B.C.?

[2:15]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to bring further information to the member with regard to the province of Ontario. This is the first I've heard of such a thing, but I can say that we have two positions traditionally. The first is that the jurisdiction of the B.C. Telephone Company should be in B.C. where the B.C. Utilities Commission can pass judgement on its rates; the second is that a 15 percent increase is preposterous, unnecessary and out of the question.

MR. NICOLSON: Thank you. That certainly is one area in which the official opposition concurs. It's also our position that the jurisdiction should be here in British Columbia. However, by not appearing before the CRTC, does the minister not feel that they are acquiescing in those very onerous and disruptive changes in the rate schedules?

[ Page 5006 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: Not really, because the appropriate place for governments to speak is to other governments, not to the hirelings of other governments. I may say that the CRTC is appointed by the federal government. The new federal government has made it clear that it will give instruction to the CRTC; therefore the appropriate place for, our government, under ordinary circumstances, to make its opinions known is to the federal government, which controls the CRTC.

MR. NICOLSON: Then I ask the minister if he has intervened with the federal minister recently in order to prevent this increase.

MS. SANFORD: Why do you go to the CTC then? The government makes representations to the CTC all the time.

HON. MR. McGEER: Under normal circumstances — and I think the members opposite can grasp this — the proper place for one level of government to make its positions known is to another level of government, just as we have had a first ministers' meeting in Ottawa. That's the way to bring harmony. I'm sure my colleagues, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), would recognize this. It's not for a government to get into an argument with some appointed body of the federal government. Make the position known to government itself, and let it be understood that in the final analysis appointed bodies are responsible to the governments that appoint them, So it is with the CRTC. I can give an undertaking to the member that we will certainly make our position known again to the federal government with respect to this matter.

CRUISE MISSILE TESTING

MR. SKELLY: I have a question for the acting Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, due to the absence of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who is in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, given that Canada has again announced that they will allow the testing of the cruise missile over British Columbia, will the acting Minister of Intergovernmental Relations advise whether the government of BC has been consulted by the federal government regarding cruise missile system tests run over the territory of British Columbia?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, due to the member's absence, I will be very pleased to take that question on notice and have it answered on his return.

MR. SKELLY: Supplementary. What steps has the government of British Columbia taken to protest involvement in the arms race and, in particular, the testing of cruise missile systems over British Columbia? Has this government taken any steps to do that to the federal government?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the minister, upon his return, will be very pleased to take the necessary time to bring forward an answer that I'm sure you're seeking. Therefore I again take the question as notice and will bring it to his attention upon his return.

MR. SKELLY: Would the minister undertake to consult with the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations before the testing of the cruise missile?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No doubt I will be discussing the question I've just taken as notice with the minister upon his return, and no doubt he will be responding some time shortly after that.

PRINCESS MARGUERITE SAILINGS

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways, in his authority of overseeing the Princess Marguerite of the B.C. Steamship Company. The planning for the sailing date for the Princess Marguerite is creating some economic damage here in our community. As the minister recognizes, the Princess Marguerite is a central part of the Victoria tourist economy. In fact, just last week the Victoria visitors' bureau remarked, "You've got to be kidding," when they heard that the sailing date was moved ahead. Has the government now decided to reconsider and restore the sailing date effective May 3?

HON. A. FRASER: The answer is no.

MR. HANSON: Is the minister aware that there is a report done by staff at the B.C. Steamship Company that recommends that a sailing of May 3 would be the most opportune date for beginning this year's tourist season?

HON. A. FRASER: Yes, I'm aware of several reports that we have, including staff reports.

MR. BLENCOE: Supplementary to the first member's question, Mr. Speaker. I think the minister and the whole House recognize the importance of the Marguerite to this community and to tourism. In light of that, I wonder if the minister intends to meet with the Victoria MLAs to try to find some resolution to this important issue. It's a simple question: would he, today or as soon as possible, meet with us to see if we can work this thing out?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'd have to think about that.

MOTORCYCLIST LICENSING CHANGES

MR. PASSARELL: A question to the same minister: he has recently announced a new policy requiring holders of learners' permits for motorcycles to be accompanied by another motorcyclist, driving by his side. In view of the hardship this may involve for cyclists in remote and rural areas of the province, will the minister advise how he proposes to handle this situation?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member, we're aware that it will cause some hardships; on the other side of the ledger, we were severely criticized in 1984 for not having tough enough conditions for licensing of motorcycles, and we're trying to tighten up on that.

[ Page 5007 ]

GANGES SEWER SUBSIDY

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Last week I asked the minister about the Ganges sewer and the failure to hold a referendum on the issue. The chairman of the CRD stated again last week that if they dared to hold a referendum in Ganges on the sewer issue, the minister would remove the $800,000 grant to finance the sewer's debt. The question is: why will the minister not allow a democratic vote on this issue when the residents in that area have said for years that they wish to vote on it?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, the question of a referendum is no problem, as far as I am concerned, as long as a referendum deals only with the amount of money that was already allocated to that project. However, as was already indicated to this House, there was an additional amount of money put forward that represented closely the cost of putting in the proper facilities for both the school and the hospital. Therefore, if indeed a referendum took place and the decision of the voters was "no," then we could find ourselves in a rather difficult situation with respect to providing the proper facilities for those two institutions.

After over 20 years arid over 17 studies, I think it's about time that we got on with the job. There seems to be absolutely no regard for those students in that school who are not receiving the standard of sewage disposal that they are entitled to. There is no regard for those patients in the hospital that require this service upgraded.

I am told, Mr. Speaker, that during the winter months we have raw sewage entering ditches and the harbour. I am also advised that they're having to transport raw sewage away from the hospital; I have asked my staff to confirm this. But I am told that that material is being transported by ferry. I would think that it's about time the opposition got down to supporting a move of this nature that is going to permit the proper facilities to be installed for the hospital and the school and, while we are spending that money, utilize the other funds already available and the equipment in place and provide an adequate service for that entire designated community.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 35, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity of moving second reading of the Public Service Act.

Before I address specific changes contained in this bill, I want to emphasize the critical aspects of government personnel management that remain unchanged.

The principle that merit shall govern appointments to the public service is at the heart of this bill. This is a long-standing principle and has been enshrined in previous public service acts and the civil service acts that preceded them.

As a characteristic of good management, the idea of appointing or promoting people who are most qualified to do the job does not differ in any way from the practices found in any well-run business. We, however, must also take into account the unique position of the Crown as an employer. For this reason, the bill proposes changes which will strengthen guardianship of this merit principle and ensure that its application benefits all of our citizens.

The bill proposes establishment of an independent Public Service Commission. This commission will hear appeals of job applicants who feel the principle of merit has not been followed in specific appointments. I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that for the first time formal appeals would be allowed by any job applicant, not only those who art already employed in the public service. The former act established a consultative committee representative of each bargaining agent to deal with procedures involved in determining merit. This bill calls for consultation. But let us be frank: the union's position is to put large weighting to seniority, and so they should argue this case to protect their members. But our responsibility is broader. It extends to all members of the public. At the present time seniority is weighted at 10 percent, with knowledge, experience and personnel suitability making up the remaining 90 percent.

I can assure the House, Mr. Speaker, that we also recognize the value of seniority and will not diminish its rating at all. However, that does not take away our responsibility as elected representatives to ensure that in law the merit principle is upheld in a way that is fair to all British Columbians.

[2:30]

The role of the proposed Public Service Commission differs significantly from that of the existing commission. The current Public Service Act charges the commission with a mix of managerial and redress responsibilities. There are two significant shortcomings in this allocation of responsibility. The first is that the commissioner is responsible for administering the staffing process and for policing it. In effect, the commission is responsible for policing itself.

This bill proposes that the Public Service Commission's role of guarding the application of the merit principle be separated from any real or apparent conflict with other responsibilities.

Of note, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that in establishing an independent Public Service Commission, which is solely a redress agency, British Columbia joins the other two provinces that most recently changed their public service acts: New Brunswick and Quebec. It might be noted that in 1978 the United States Civil Service Commission was abolished and replaced by the merit system's protection board, which is also solely a redress agency.

I mentioned earlier that the current assignment of responsibility to the Public Service Commission has two major shortcomings, the first of which I have already addressed. The second shortcoming is that sound, efficient management of in ministries is difficult to achieve when authority to make the day-to-day personnel decisions is in a central agency. The problems inherent in such a split of managerial responsibilities can be illustrated with a couple of examples. Under the current Public Service Act no employee may transfer either within a ministry or between ministries without the prior approval of the Public Service Commission. A request to approve such a transfer, with all its accompanying justification, must wend its way through the bureaucracy in every single case. Then the commission's decision must retrace that route. This happens even when everyone involved in the transfer, including employees, thinks that it is desirable. The supervisors, the managers, the deputy ministers can all consider that it is a good management decision, but only the

[ Page 5008 ]

commission, which has no first-hand knowledge of the situation, can actually make the decision.

Another example of the authority to decide job classifications is that no public servant except those who work for the government employee relations bureau — GERB — had the authority to decide, for instance, that a clerk working in Fort St. John was a clerk 3 rather than a clerk 5. The reality is that the handful of people in Victoria were allowed to make these decisions totally dependent upon second- or third-hand information provided by the people who worked in the ministry. In such a situation, who is really responsible if the job is classified incorrectly? How could GERB officials be held accountable if the job wasn't well explained? How could the ministry officials be hold accountable for decisions they didn't make? In order for a deputy minister to be fully accountable for the efficient operation of the ministry, he or she must have the authority to implement the day-to-day personnel transactions. In government there has been the practice of sharing responsibility and thereby clouding the proper accountability of both managers and central agencies.

My last few remarks have concentrated on the problems created when the people who need to make the decisions aren't allowed to, and the people who are allowed to make the decisions aren't in the best position to do so.

Like many other provincial jurisdictions — and indeed the federal government — we responded to changes in the public service of the 1970s, namely the introduction of collective bargaining, by creating two centralized agencies that shared hiring, classification and collective bargaining. The experience of the last ten years has demonstrated clearly that it is time for new directions.

This bill does not contain provisions which would create these problems. The bill permits the centralization of policy development in collective bargaining authority. It is both necessary and appropriate that the day-to-day decisions made in any one ministry be governed by policies which apply equally to all ministries. It is important that the personnel decisions made in one ministry be in general accord with decisions made in all the other ministries and that these daily decisions reflect the government's direction. In this respect, personnel management in the B.C. government will parallel our system of financial management. The Treasury Board will continue to act as a committee of the executive council in matters relating to government of personnel management. Just as directives respecting accounting policies and practices are issued through the Ministry of Finance, directives respecting personnel management will be issued through the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services. For example, issues such as employee transfers and safeguards against conflict of interest that are found in the present act will be addressed through directives under section 2 of this bill. Directives will also be used as a mechanism to continue the existing understanding of words such as "position," "establishment," "class" or "promotion" which are defined in the Public Service Act.

Matters that are negotiable through collective bargaining will of course be dealt with in that forum. This act, in my view, does not alter or change the terms and conditions in any of the collective agreements that we have with the trade unions representing our employees; areas requiring specific legislative direction, however, have been incorporated into the bill. For example, in order to ensure that employees are on an equal footing, section 6(1) indicates that employees will be on probation until they have worked the equivalent of six months; thus a half-time employee will be on probation for a period of 12 months. A directive will be issued to govern the application of this provision in the multitude of different situations found in government.

This bill also continues a few other provisions contained in the current Public Service Act, such as oaths, Canadian preference, mandatory retirement and the royal prerogative to hire and dismiss staff.

Mr. Speaker, there is one more significant proposal in this bill which I have not yet addressed: the establishment of a government personnel services division to act as a central focal point for all personnel issues. The reasons for this proposal are best explained within the context of what has been done before.

The relationship between the government and its employees has changed considerably over the years. It has evolved from one that might be classified as master and servant to the present situation where the Crown, like other employers in our society, is required by law to deal contractually with its employees. Prior to collective bargaining, the employees' rights and the government's obligations were reflected in the civil service act and the regulations and policies that flowed from it. Although the name of the act was changed to the Public Service Act in 1974, when the concept of collective bargaining was introduced, few changes were made to the basic structure of personnel management in government.

In 1976 we introduced changes to the Public Service Act in an attempt to find a better way of dealing with collective bargaining within the traditions, policies and legislative framework of the public service. At that time responsibility for labour relations, compensation and general personnel matters were removed from the Public Service Commission and assigned to the Treasury Board, acting through its agent the Government Employee Relations Bureau. The Public Service Commission was left with a responsibility for the recruitment and election of employees, staff development and training, and the coordination of employee safety. This dual agency structure was an interesting concept, although not unique to this province, and has been given a good test. The model is in fact one found in the federal government, where responsibility for personnel management is shared between the Public Service Commission and the Treasury Board secretariat. There are problems, again not unique to this province; they are ones created by the separation of responsibilities for personnel management. Specific personnel-related functions are not watertight compartments. There is in fact considerable overlap between recruitment and classification or between collective bargaining and safety.

Five years ago in the federal sphere, a special committee headed by Guy D'Avignon was commissioned by the government of Canada to review personnel management and the merit principle in the federal public service. They concluded that the dual structure of responsibility was not conducive to effective management of the government's staff. The committee recognized that a focal point to translate government policy to managerial action was needed. It found that the split in responsibility left the managers in government without the clearly defined goals that were necessary for efficient management. The D'Avignon committee recommended that a single branch of government be assigned all aspects of personnel management. It went on to recommend that an independent public service commission be retained as the guardian of the merit principle. It would not, however, have any day-to-day operational responsibilities.

[ Page 5009 ]

The studies we have done, both from inside and outside of government, have come to the same conclusion. Mr. Speaker, we need a strong central focus in government to set goals for personnel management, create policies and monitor actual practices. The organization structure providing personnel services in the government would be changed through this bill. It is a change that will find wide acceptance, as it will clearly define responsibilities and properly assign accountabilities for personnel management in the public service.

Earlier I spoke about the evolution of personnel administration in government. The emergence of the merit principle is one example of this evolution. Originally the Crown could employ and dismiss any and all of its servants without having to justify these decisions. By the beginning of this century, the way in which these royal prerogatives were being exercised in Canada had become incompatible with the values held by an increasing number of people. Ways such as the adoption of the merit principle were found to limit the widespread indiscriminate use of these prerogatives. It is important to note that the right of the Crown to employ and dismiss at pleasure was only limited. It was not abolished in the past, and it is not abolished in this bill. Section 1 addresses employment, while section 14 deals with dismissals. These prerogatives are currently enshrined in section 2 and section 48 of the Public Service Act.

Some members may say that the removal from the Public Service Commission of the power to appoint staff leaves the door wide open for political patronage. Mr. Speaker, I wish to state in no uncertain terms that the provisions of this bill make such an accusation false and absolutely groundless. Our commitment to preserve and, indeed. strengthen the merit principle permeates this bill. The bill unequivocally requires that appointment to and promotions within the public service be based on merit. The types of factors that may legitimately define merit are clearly spelled out in section 5. Appointments to and from the public service can only occur after a process is followed that appraises the qualifications and capabilities of eligible applicants. Merit is determined by having regard to the job duties in relation to the applicant's skills, education, knowledge, experience, past work performance and seniority. The directives that will be issued in this regard will be public knowledge, and I can assure the House that this legislation will guarantee a truly meritorious public service.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Raise that in this debate, and I'll answer that question for you.

People familiar with the operation of government know that the real decisions on who is hired are made in the ministries. Indeed, any person who knows how government works knows that the authority to recruit was delegated to most ministries already. I want the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) to pay attention to those words. There has been a delegation of authority to hire to other ministries. All ministries have that authority at this time.

For example, the Attorney-General, Lands, Parks and Housing, Transportation and Highways and several others received delegation to directly hire in 1965, twenty years ago. Other ministries have received this recruitment delegation over the years, until all now have it. Recruitment was, therefore, formally handled by the Public Service Commission. But in reality — even during the 1972 to 1975 era — hiring took place in the ministries, even though it was formally ratified by the Public Service Commission. However, to some degree these decisions have been shielded from accountability, because formal authority for appointment has rested with the Public Service Commission. This bill will allow accountability for the proper application of the merit principle to be clearly assigned to ministries.

[2:45]

Any person who considers that the merit principle was improperly applied to his or her application for a job will be able to bring the case to an independent — and I stress the word "independent" — Public Service Commission. This commission will not be in the invidious position of reviewing decisions for which it was ultimately responsible in the first place. The Crown's prerogatives to hire and fire that I described earlier have not been expanded; they have only been preserved.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions I've just described strengthen the merit principle and cannot be characterized as an erosion of it.

Another example of the evolution to which I referred earlier is the fact that the existence of collective bargaining has had an impact on the maintenance of the merit principle. The bargaining agents for employees are vigilant in ensuring that the principle of merit is a criterion for appointments and promotions within the public service. The proposed legislation quite clearly retains the principle of merit. Indeed, it strengthens merit by an additional criterion: past work performance, both in initial appointments from outside and in promotions from within the public service.

The establishment of the Public Service Commission as an appeal agency separate and apart from staffing operations will enhance its true independence and contribute to its ability to act as a guardian of the merit principle. Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in moving second reading of this bill.

MR. HANSON: We on this side of the House will be opposing this bill. We will be opposing this bill because of the potential danger that the provisions of this new act contain for abuse, for political patronage and for the assignment, delegation and definition of "merit" based on politics rather than on weighted factors of merit as outlined by that minister.

It is very much a part of a modern democratic society that the hiring of people employed by the government — whether it be at the federal, provincial or municipal level — to work on behalf of the public should be separate and apart from any political consideration whatsoever. What we have had in this province is a Public Service Commission which was appointed for, I believe, a six-year term. Those individuals were themselves appointed on merit, not for partisan reasons. The hiring for government and the recruitment into the public service of the province was done separate and apart from the political party in party in power in the province. That is a fundamental tenet of any democratic society.

Mr. Speaker, the Public Service Commission that will be established under this bill will have a very limited function. It will, first of all, be appointed by this cabinet, and then it will hear only appeals. Individuals applying for employment in this province will not really have a clear idea whether or not they've had a fair hearing.

The present commission appointed the chairperson of a panel which depended on the nature of the position. They oversaw the recruitment process. For the minister to say that the ministries had no say in that hiring in terms of the kinds of

[ Page 5010 ]

skill levels required and the attributes necessary for that particular position is absolutely false.

What the government wants to do is take over the direct hiring of the public service so that the public service is more an arm of a political party, as opposed to working for the people of this province.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden that minister is getting very agitated. The merit principle and its application is fundamental in a modern democratic society. He refers to the weighting of different factors of merit as they may apply to different positions. Fine. It has always been understood in the Ministry of Highways, for example, that if a person had worked for a number of years through various levels of labourer, and a truck-driving position was available, that person with some seniority would have some opportunity to apply for the truck-driving job. What he tries to do in his initial remarks is extrapolate that to all positions in government, which is false. That's misinformation.

There are many hundreds of different types of jobs in the public service, as you are aware. There are people who work in the health institutions. There are people who work in correctional institutions. There are people who do scientific things — very sophisticated and at a high educational level. There are people who are oriented more to public relations, coming from media or information backgrounds. There is the whole clerical area. There's engineering. There are all sort of technical aspects. There are pilots. There are even people who function as priests and ministers in the correctional institutions, I believe, I don't know whether that particular group is still in existence, but it was a few years ago. These were people who performed last rites and so on and worked in the counselling and religious area in institutions. Whether they're still there or not I don't know.

What I'm saying is that the public service reflects very much the diversity of the economy in the private sector, except these people are performing functions that have been mandated by this Legislature to be delivered to the public. The people, the skills, education and qualifications necessary to provide those services are to be determined by an independent body, separate from a political party, because a political party has a built-in inclination to direct its attention in certain ways, according to its background and its principles and its philosophical direction. But that has nothing to do with whether a person can be a good engineer or a good technician or a curator or a biologist or a librarian or a nurse's aide or a truck driver or a surveyor or an assessor or any of the multitude of positions that the public supports through its general revenue and taxation.

Why do we have a public service commission in the first place, Mr. Speaker? We have a public service commission because the history of this province was that political patronage was a part of working for the government. There are other jurisdictions where political patronage is still very much a part of being employed by the government, so that when governments change, truck drivers and nurses' aides and assessors and biologists change. There is a turnover. Is that the kind of public service we want in British Columbia?

In 1983 we had Bill 3, which this government put forward to fire public service workers, whether they were firefighters, police personnel, nurses, teachers, municipal workers or anything else in the public service — to fire them without cause. In other words, that group of employees would no longer have natural justice. They would have no recourse to natural justice. They could be fired by law, by the government, without just cause.

We have a bill here which allows for hiring without cause, rather than firing without cause. Political affiliation can be very difficult to detect by outside observers. In other words, if a panel directed by a manager who may or may not be a political appointee — and many of the top-level managers in government, whether we call them deputies or associate deputies or assistant deputies, are categorized as political appointees....

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Now if a ministry is going to hire.... Let's just say it's Highways. If Highways is going to be hiring directly, outside of any independent hiring agency.... In other words, the Provincial Secretary in this case is going to develop directives and give them to the ministries, and those ministries will then determine how the hiring takes place. Now that hiring could weight political affiliation with greater weight than seniority, qualifications, experience or education. The potential for abuse is there, and we know enough about the record of this government in its approach to administering the public service to be frightened of that proposal.

Almost all of the statutory protections which were provided for under the old Public Service Act have been swept into section 2. This section allows the Provincial Secretary to issue directives dealing with government personnel management. Nowhere in this new act does it define just what a directive is, nor does it state what the purpose of these directives are.

Let's look at the act. If the intent is to have these directives become regulations, then this section will restrict the union's ability — the bargaining units that represent the public service group; that's the professionals, the nurses, the BCGEU and so on — to deal with matters listed under subsections (a), (b), (c), (c), (f), and (g).

Let's just take a look at the language of section 2, personnel management: "The Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services may issue directives respecting government personnel management, including directives respecting (a) recruitment, selection and appointment of staff...." Now there are, Mr. Speaker, many thousands of people hired directly by this provincial governmen., That minister sitting there will have the authority to carry out directly the recruitment and selection process, and the appointment of staff to work for the provincial government. He will also have authority for training, for the development of the health and safety of employees, and for the general administration of all labour relations matters of the public service.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that minister is competent. He is a politician; he's not an expert in industrial relations. He's not an expert in personnel matters or health and safety matters, he's a politician. So he'll be making directives, not experts in industrial relations or in modern labour relations matters, as they are examined in various jurisdictions. But we'll have a politician — a Social Credit politician from Columbia River — and he will be in charge, along with his deputy, of administering through other political appointees in

[ Page 5011 ]

other ministries the hiring and recruitment process in government. That is a very dangerous route for the public service of British Columbia to go.

[3:00]

The changes in this bill, Mr. Speaker, have to be seen also in terms of companion pieces of legislation, where the government demonstrates its basic contempt for the electoral process through amendments to the Election Act, through its basic contempt for the Legislature and its basic contempt for the independence of the appointment process which should be in place within our government for hiring people to work on behalf of the public of this province. So what we have in this bill is the potential for hiring without cause or hiring for political purposes — political intervention.

Mr. Speaker, I can recall a time when the position of government agent was a highly revered and exalted position within the public service of this province. It was a position for a career government employee, someone who had demonstrated the ability to work consistently on behalf of the public without political interference. Now we have the Tony Tozer style, the Tony Tozer government agent — people who have not come through the normal course of government promotion. Their promotion is a different promotion: a partisan Social Credit-motivated promotion. That type of appointment policy could permeate all of the public service of this province. The potential is clearly there.

Government agents now are sent little messages where they're asked to monitor how Social Credit cabinet ministers present themselves on television — whether they look all right, or whether their particular press conference or press release is covered on a regional television hookup. That is a role that government agents have now had to assume on behalf of the Socred masters. The Provincial Secretary referred to that master-servant relationship — that master-slave relationship which government workers have had in history. Now we're going to have that kind of style permeate the hiring policy of our government.

This is a very important bill, Mr. Speaker. It takes us on a major departure from the independent appointment policy that is so important to the people of this province. The commission will be relegated to a relatively minor function in appeals. Appeals to what? The chairperson of the commission or the three people appointed are not at deputy minister rank. There's nothing in the bill that states they have any kind of equivalency with deputy ministers in the government service. They will be working for the deputy Provincial Secretary — they'll be a part of Mr. Plecas's organization. That's the way they will do business: they will report to him, and he will be reporting directly to the Premier or to the Provincial Secretary. Or maybe Mr. Kinsella will be in charge; that is a possibility as well. We will have these commissioners working underneath a deputy; they'll be working under a political minister. So there's not that ranking that would even allow for some protection through the equal ranking of a deputy minister.

We'll have people following a narrow set of guidelines; they'll be restricted in their focus in appeals. Rather than having the kind of negotiated appeal process that we have had in the past where there's involvement of the various employee groups, and a procedure there, this will be a process determined through directives by the commission.

Let's go through some of the other sections that the minister touched on. Section 5 is a very important one because it replaces section 20 of the old act. We heard the minister.... If we get Hansard and count the number of times he said "merit," he probably mentioned it 20 or 25 times. He's very concerned with attempting to communicate a political message that somehow merit is not going by the wayside — when of course it is. There has been a consultative committee on merit which was close to reaching agreement on how merit is determined and defined within the public service with respect to the various occupational groups it would be applied to. The government decided to forgo all those negotiated arrangements and discussions and all the progress that had been made, and the attempt to meet a mutually agreed upon resolution, and has decided to arbitrarily define merit in terms of a Social Credit definition.

We know how the Social Credit would weight merit factors. They certainly wouldn't be the kinds of things that would be determined by any other independent body looking at maximum qualifications and striving for excellence within the public service for the delivery of services to the people of the province. A biologist to be hired may not.... It may not be good enough that a person be totally qualified for the position, be fully acquainted with the ungulates in the area, the wildlife management, the legislation, all of the factors that may be required in the performance of that particular posted biologist position. It just may be blown into someone's ear that, in addition to the kinds of skill levels that person has, he is also Social Credit. How would that be dealt with by the Public Service Commission when they beard appeals from other well-qualified candidates — equally qualified candidates? How would it be determined that that person was politically sympathetic, that that person was willing to take instructions or direction from those currently representing Social Credit in power? We're moving into a very shady area of public administration.

In the press release that the minister issued when he notified us that he was going to proceed with a rewrite of the Public Service Act, he argued that the Public Service Commission was in a conflict situation because they had to hear appeals and function in some kind of appeal process when they had been involved in the selection and recruitment process. If there was a problem there, it could have been dealt with in many ways other than taking the hiring of government employees unto themselves.

I don't think any modern jurisdiction — and he's referring to other places in Canada.... We'll certainly be looking very carefully into exactly what is in place in the jurisdictions that he's mentioned. But merit is at the centre, because merit means that the best possible person is hired for the position without any application of a political factor. That's really what merit means in the public service. It means that we look at the job to be filled, the qualifications required — educational standards, experience levels, other kinds of knowledge on the job, etc. — and appraisals, evaluations, past work record and so on. Those factors are looked at to see if the person is a candidate for the position that the public requires.

Now it states in the act that the Provincial Secretary.... A Socred politician will write directives regarding hiring, selection and all of these other eight or nine major aspects of public administration — matters respecting discipline. suspension, dismissal, maintenance of personnel, management information systems, monitoring and auditing of all personnel functions.... Only in section 2(d) does he even make passing reference to the fact that there may be a negotiated contract in place with the bargaining agents of the

[ Page 5012 ]

employees: terms and conditions of employment, including rates of compensation and employee expenses and allowances, subject to any applicable provisions of a collective agreement.... Why isn't that particular clause, "subject to any applicable provisions of a collective agreement," attached to some of those other items under section 2 of the act, under personnel management? I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. The Provincial Secretary wants to be able to politically determine who gets hired in certain areas.

In the past, to work on the highways of the province — and I have old clippings from 1946....

HON. MR. CHABOT: I wasn't here.

MR. HANSON: You were here in a different form, different name, but you were here.

Let me just read a couple of these to you. The old coalition was very much into political patronage — who got hired. You had to have the right card in your pocket to get hired by the government. Maybe not in all of the positions, but it sure seemed to help at certain times. One of the things that W.A.C. Bennett seemed to get a lot of kudos for as the administrator of a civil service commission.... This was before his time as Premier, but there was a new civil service act. Let me just read you one of the clippings from the Times of 1945 — before it became the Times-Colonist. It says:

"One of the measures which has engaged the earnest consideration of the British Columbia Legislature at the session now in its closing hours is that which puts the administration of the civil service on a new and more efficient basis.

"It is all to the good that this province's coalition administration is leading the way in removing" — this is important, Mr. Speaker — "what some may consider the stigma attaching to a 'reward-for-party-service job.'"

That's what it was in 1945. The cabinet carried out the hiring function of government, and, in the popular mind among the people of this province, it was a "reward-for-party-service job."

[3:15]

In the last few years, notwithstanding the kinds of protections that exist in legislation and the Public Service Commission and the Government Employee Relations Bureau and so on, we have seen political interference in the hiring and recruitment process.

Mr. Tozer had no business becoming a government agent. Mr. Bennett's shirt-tail relative was hired as a government agent in this province. Shame! Little did we know, Mr. Speaker, that a couple of years later the Socred government would attempt to enshrine in law the right to reward for party service through public administration. The Maritimes, years back, were reputed to operate on that basis, but here we are, Mr. Speaker, in 1985 embarking on this type of a process.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Maybe that's true, Mr. Member, that now that we rank at the bottom of the scale along with Newfoundland on almost every economic and social indicator, the one to bring in line is public administration and public policy development and the administration of our public service.

Mr. Speaker, the merit categories are outlined in the bill. Let me just point out what they are. In section 5 they refer to the applicant's education, skills, knowledge, experience, past work performance and years of continuous service in the public service. Fine. Sounds great, except that the weighing of those factors is a very rigorous and sophisticated public administration discipline. It has to be determined with the advice and assistance and consultation and negotiation with those individuals who know and are acquainted with the kinds of skill levels and the kind of factors that are required to perform a particular job.

I alluded to the example of the labourer who should have the opportunity to become a truck driver. There should be a flow that would allow that to occur. But the many hundreds of occupational groupings within the public service, if past work performance or past work experience happened to be working at Social Credit headquarters in Richmond — and we've seen that kind of approach.... That is the pitfall that I am pointing out to you, Mr. Speaker.

So in section 5 we don't have the definition of merit as being something that is negotiated with those who best understand the work involved in performing that function. We have instead a top-down approach where the Socred cabinet ministers will determine what merit is. It will be put on a directive. It will be sent to the various ministries and they will then follow through on the hiring on that basis.

Section 5(4) will effectively provide the government personnel services division the authority to limit who can apply for a vacancy. They will have the power to limit applications to workers of a specific occupational group, positional level or organizational unit.

Section 5(4) also allows for ministries to be able to restrict job vacancies to workers in that ministry. What are the implications of those kinds of new directions and regulations?

Section 6 of the act, the probation period.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Do that in committee.

MR. HANSON: Fine, we'll do that in committee,

Section 7, commission established. There's nothing in the way the language of this particular clause is framed to really state clearly the independence of this commission. We don't have to use much imagination in this House to see a commission of, say, Mr. Eckardt, Mr. Bonner and Mr. Campbell.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Clay Perry. Sabatino.

MR. HANSON: That would be nice.

The independence of the commission is not clear. Not only is there no longer a rule, an impartial, removed, arm's length hiring process, but it is now directly within the directive-formulating function of the cabinet. We don't know anything about the independence of the commission; all we know is that they will hear appeals in some process yet to be determined.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That will be in a directive.

MR. HANSON: It will, will it?

Section 9 provides the commission with the authority to review a selection decision pursuant to section 5(l) only. In other words, the appeals appear to be limited to hiring,

[ Page 5013 ]

selection and appointment. That is the narrow focus that the commission will have.

For example, a person in Prince George applies for a position — say a member in your own constituency, Mr. Speaker. Let's just say a top-notch biologist, specializing in wolves, applies for a position, and receives a note that they were not the successful candidate. They see a directive with the minister's signature on it, or the commission's directive, stating: "You must within certain time limits file your appeal." What is that process? Who pays? Who brings that person in? What sort of recourse does the person have? It certainly means that people who have some kind of geographic proximity to the position may have some advantage as well.

So there are many clauses that we want answers for, and we'll be dealing with those in committee stage. But the principle of the bill and the objection we have to this act is that it reintroduces political interference into the process for hiring government workers. It is that old line attaching a reward-for-party-service job that we saw in the clippings from the Victoria Times of 1945, page 9.

It's a serious thing. It's something that raises a sense of foreboding. It's not limited to those working directly for the provincial government, but to all those other organizations, such as colleges, correctional institutions and so on. There's a whole series on pages 6 to 9 that indicate all of the various legislative changes that will flow from this consolidation of this hiring-without-just-cause bill. That is our concern: it will be hiring without just cause.

Mr. Speaker, we see no reason for this bill. The motivation has to be political. There is no argument that can be made by looking at comparative jurisdictions or efficiencies — whatever language they choose to use to justify taking the hiring of the public service unto themselves.

The delegation of staffing, of hiring, to people who may be politically motivated in the different ministries, or at that political level, is an inappropriate way to do the public's business. We oppose it. We see that it opens the way for favouritism. Politicians should not be in the position where they can on a daily basis be in the bargaining units of the public service, appointing people on the basis of partisan politics and not on the most rigorous and sophisticated definitions and weighting factors of merit. We have very serious concerns about the selection and recruitment process to be adopted under this act.

There's nothing really in the commission definition....

I'm the designated speaker, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's always appreciated if the member would advise us if he is designated. Please proceed.

MR. HANSON: We have concerns about the language which frames the Public Service Commission, because it doesn't indicate, in any way, that it is an independent tribunal. I mentioned the ranking earlier. Can the commission be over-ruled by a deputy minister or the minister? Of course the answer that we conclude with is yes. The determination of merit is something we're very concerned about as well. We feel that the definition of merit should be determined through some very sophisticated negotiation process which brings together those who know what is required in the position with the independent administrators of the public service.

We don't know what motivated the government in the changing of this act other than to take unto themselves the authority to hire with the introduction of the political dimension. There is no other reason for it that we can see, and there is no other language.... We have not been able, from the minister's comments, to determine any justification for it. A government has a tremendous power when it has the authority to hire individuals, particularly in a time when the economy of British Columbia reflects so accurately the failed economic directions and policies of Social Credit.

[3:30]

Any school of public administration could have given advice. The best thing a provincial government, a federal government or a municipal government should have is an independent arm's-length body that oversees the non-partisan hiring practices of its administration. The potential is so great for abuse, and the government then will be so vulnerable, that we will have the inept functioning of our public service manifesting itself in the services that we should be providing at the best possible level to the public of this province.

We will be speaking at length in the committee stage of the bill, clause by clause, about the objections that we have. There are so many strenuous questions raised by this bill and the way it has been introduced, without any real advance notice to the various individual organizations involved....

HON. MR. CHABOT: They've had it since Thursday of last week.

MR. HANSON: They've had it since last Thursday. We would take a piece of legislation that's been on the books, with periodic amendments, which is central to the way the people's services of this province are provided.... The deputy minister and the minister would fire out a news release and a copy of the bill just hours before it's introduced in this chamber. Mr. Speaker, what's the rush? Why the haste? They want to get a handle on this hiring thing. They want to get a handle on these provisions. It's a powerful handle too. They've had it since last Thursday, and here we are at Monday, and the pressure.... Today it's the first item of business that comes forward.

If you're going to change the way in which the public service functions in the province, it should be as the result of studies, hearings, consultation and getting the best possible advice. Instead we had probably a couple of political advisers saying: "Faced with the low standings in the polls and the fact that we are the most hated government in all of Canada, that we may be defeated in the next election, notwithstanding the moving of the goal posts and the creation of more seats, notwithstanding all of those factors, the political advice is: get control of the pork barrel; get control of the hiring and recruitment policies of government so that we can hire directly, so that the public service can be an arm of one political party and not function for the good of all the people of this province."

Public service, by its very nature, is supposed to be removed from politics. It's not supposed to be the servant of a political party. But this will make it a servant, an arm of a political party. Layers of protection for the public are gone, We talk often in this chamber of the right to education, the right to vote. People of this province also have the right to work in the public service if they have the appropriate qualifications and so on to apply for those positions; the right

[ Page 5014 ]

to be hired into public service without political interference. What political party you belong to is not a factor in determining merit.

When a political minister has the authority to issue directives around the hiring selection and recruitment, that person then has the power to make determinations which will introduce politics. That can be done very subtly. It can be rationalized very subtly in the scope of a posting: defining terms and qualifications or job descriptions in such a way that they apply only to a political friend. They can cut the job posting description to fit the political cloth that is there. That shouldn't happen. If that happens, we're moving back to 1945 where we had, as I said, reward for party service as a part of the merit principle in this province.

Mr. Speaker, there are many detailed clauses that we'll be speaking on later, but when we're discussing the philosophy of this act — the so-called principle contained in this act — I think we see a very dangerous principle indeed. I know I've stated it, but I think it must be stated over and over again that this government is taking unto itself the power to hire individuals into the public service in a direct way without an independent commission of people of the stature of Art Richardson, a revered career government employee of high stature. There are others of his stature as well who have functioned in that capacity. Whatever names come flying back and forth across this floor, Mr. Richardson, a very able chairperson of the commission, was outside of any political direction. Another is Mr. Higgins, an individual who was equally well respected. From my experience, whether from employees or managers or people within this Legislature on both sides of the House, Mr. Dick Higgins, when he was functioning in the Public Service Commission, was beyond reproach. No one questioned their recruitment and hiring policies or whether they'd hired the right person through their responsibilities. It never occurred.

In this Legislature we've employed people of the stature of Mr. Wallace, someone respected by both sides of the House, and one who performed in the best interests of the public service and the people of this province. We're moving away from that, and it's something that every person in this province should reflect upon. What does it mean when a political party has the power to hire people to work in Riverview Hospital? To work in Woodlands? To work in the jails? To work in all public services? What does it mean that a political party hires? What does it mean when they determine merit, when they decide what the weighted factors are for the position? They don't know. They're not experts in public administration or industrial relations. When it comes to industrial relations, they're provocateurs. They approach industrial relations to see what political benefit they can get by scapegoating one group against another. "Let's put the nurses in the barrel today," they say. "Let's go after them. Let's go after the public service. Let's go after the teachers." That's their approach. What can it do for them in the polls? They use the public service to attack. It's the popular thing to do, to perpetuate certain myths and take advantage of them.

You know what, Mr. Speaker? Public employees can't speak back. They can't fight back, by oath. They're fired if they fight back. This government has always been very tough. It's like a heavyweight boxing match and fighting a person who hasn't got sight. That's their approach. You don't have to take my word for it; just look at the last few years, how one group after another has been singled out and pummelled, for their political advantage. It might be politically popular to pound the teachers or the nurses, but I think it's gutless. I think any politician who tries to win his political epaulettes by pounding public employees is gutless, because they can't fight back, by law. We hear it every day from that side of the House.

We have a dangerous thing happening in the province of British Columbia. We don't have the power to stop it. We only have 22 members on this side of the House. As our leader has often stated, that government has 49 percent of the popular vote as of May 1983, and we have 45 percent, but with our 45 percent we have none of the political power in this Legislature. We can say to that minister that this bill is ill-conceived and subject to abuse, that whether he's the minister or not — he may not be around — that kind of law which puts that power in the hands of a cabinet minister, to allow him to interfere directly in the hiring of all government employees, is dangerous. It's anathema to democracy, to impartiality, and to the merit principle. It has no place in British Columbia. It has no place in a modern, sophisticated, democratic state. Think, Mr. Speaker, of having other political parties with this kind of.... Isn't there the Gaglardi principle or something? You'd want to see whether you'd want that kind of power in....

We don't need this kind of dictatorial power in a politician's hands. It will lead to abuse. We've seen indications of it already. It's interference that we don't need. It won't make for a better public service. It won't meet our goal of providing excellence, attempting to achieve the best possible services at the best possible and most efficient costs.

That's why we have the trouble we have in our schools and other institutions. It's because of the direct centralization of authority and decision-making in the hands of those individuals over there. The people in the school districts could manage their affairs very well until this government took all their authority and decision-making away. Local curriculum development, local funding, local priorities, local regional needs, ethnic needs, etc. are all gone. If there's anything we and the public have learned from this government, it's that the more these people centralize and take things unto themselves, the more they mess it up and fail. They're incompetent. They don't have the skill to do it. So why do they want it? Because they feel that if they can make the public service of British Columbia an arm of the Social Credit Party, they have a possibility of getting re-elected. That's what it's all about: jobs for the boys.

[3:45]

It is very dangerous. They want it to pass quickly, and they don't want much fuss. They don't want the public to know about it. They don't want them to be educated about the implications of it. They want it passed so they have that awesome power. There is no legitimate justification for this bill. We oppose it in principle. It's going in the wrong direction. It's a retrograde step, Mr. Speaker; it has no place in British Columbia in 1985. If they want to make changes, they should go to the interested groups. They should hold public hearings. There should be an all-party committee of this House to examine the best administration of the public service for the people of the province.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: As the minister said: "The pork barrel." You string people along with the promise of employment if they toe the line. That's what it's all about. It's a very cynical

[ Page 5015 ]

way, but it's very much a Social Credit way of political business.

I'll conclude my remarks on second reading. I think I have reiterated our basic objections a number of times. I look forward to moving amendments or making changes or appealing to the wisdom and the best faith of the minister to change or withdraw this bill. It really is not required. He should undertake a consultative process with the people of the province instead of trying this massive power grab to take over the hiring process in the provincial government.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting Bill 35, with reservation. The reservation. of course, is that the bill can be cleaned up in committee stage. The reservation is that there is room for abuse, but then again it's very difficult to bring in legislation where there isn't room for abuse. I don't think you can look behind a piece of legislation and then talk about the motivations of the people who are going to govern it. We have to make our decisions by the actions taken, as opposed to presupposing that there's going to be pork barrelling, presupposing that it's going to be a day for the Social Credit to hire every Social Crediter that ever came down the tube.

I'd like to point out a few of my reservations, after having said that in principle I support the bill. When I first looked at it, I thought: is this what I think it is? Is this what the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) said it's going to be? That was my first reaction. But I took this piece of legislation to people whom I trust as fair British Columbians with a long history in industrial relations in this province. And I said: "Would you take a look at the Public Service Act, Bill 35, and tell me what you think?" The reports I had back were that it's not a bad piece of legislation, but it is a bill that could be abused if not dealt with properly.

I'd like to deal with a number of areas that I think could clean up this bill. I ask the minister to comment as to whether he would undertake to make some of the changes that I'm going to suggest in these closing remarks. One area where I see a problem is in the area of appeal, section 9: you appeal back to the same commission that has made the decision in the first place. It seems to me that the bill could be cleaned up to a great extent in section 1. You could not only have "commission" mean the Public Service Commission established under section 7, but you could have another line that said "appeal commission means the appeal commission established under section 9." In other words, there should be two separate commissions. There should be the Public Service Commission and there should be an appeal commission. I don't think you can have the same commission that has made the decision in the first place hearing the appeals. It could possibly be a commission as small as three; that's the lowest number. It will probably be bigger, but it could be as small as three, according to the legislation. One of the commissioners can act with the authority of the whole commission in making decisions. Can you imagine an appeal to that decision coming back to the board of three and there not being peer-group pressure within that three-member commission to toe the line?

Legislation must not only be fair; it must appear to be fair to the public before they will accept it. It wouldn't take too much to make those changes, to have a separate appeal commission to deal with the appeal procedure under section 9. It wouldn't cost a great deal, because there wouldn't be that many appeals. We're not looking at an appeal procedure like there is in the Workers' Compensation Board, or the number of appeals under the Labour Relations Board. There would be very few appeals. It wouldn't have to be a commission that sat and received a fat salary all year round. It could be a commission that was paid for the days that it needed to sit, but it would sure be a fairer way of doing business.

Before coming into the Legislature, all legislators that I know of were calling for a new spirit of cooperation in running this Legislature. It would seem to me to be a good indicator that the spirit of cooperation is alive and well if the government would accept some ideas from this side of the House to clean up this legislation and to make it acceptable to everyone on a consensus basis. I agree with the hon. first member for Victoria that maybe this bill should be referred to the appropriate committee of this House, to take a look at regulations that are going to be applied to this legislation, because that's where the abuse can come in. We really won't know what the government has in mind as specific details until we see the regulations to this legislation — and also the directives, as the minister points out. We won't know until we see the directives; we won't know until we see the regulations. But surely this would be an opportunity for cooperation like we've never had before.

In reading this bill, I don't see where it takes away any of the existing contractual arrangements of the British Columbia Government Employees' Union or other unions dealing with the government. What it does do, though, is to preclude certain matters from being negotiated in the future — for instance, the probation period. Up until now it could have been an item that was on the table for negotiation between management and union. That will no longer be an item that can be on the table, because it's going to be law and therefore not negotiable. But I don't see that it's taking away any of the existing rights or contractual obligations between the employer and the employee. It does curtail, in a number of areas, what can be negotiated in the future, of what are now negotiable items.

It wouldn't take too much to go from an acceptable piece of legislation to an excellent piece of legislation. It would mean that there should be some changes to the bill itself and another commission to solely hear appeals. It wouldn't take much rewriting of the bill — one line in section 1 and a couple of lines in section 9, and the job would be done. We could turn this over to the appropriate committee of the House, to take a look at some recommendations in terms of regulations for this bill. I would even go so far as to say that the government itself — cabinet — could still make those regulations, but at least we in the House would feel that we had some input. Therefore the people that we represent would have had some input into what is an important bill.

The minister could indicate in his closing remarks whether he would be willing to make the changes to the appeal process. Whether he would be willing to send this bill into a House committee before going into the Committee of the Whole House, so that there could be some input from an all-party milieu, so that we could finally say, yes, we are cooperating with one another to make this House work better in a more orderly fashion. This is the government's chance, Mr. Speaker, to prove to the people of this province that they are serious when they are talking about cooperation.

In the years that I've been in this House, I don't think I've seen more than five times when the government, whether it was the government that I was in or the present government, has accepted an amendment from across the floor. I think I'm stretching it to say five. When we do get to the committee

[ Page 5016 ]

stage, I'm going to be putting forward a couple.... As long as we don't do it tomorrow; I'll try to get them ready for tomorrow. They're probably amendments that the minister has to make anyway, because it might change the intent of a section, and therefore it would be ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker.

Cooperation can be proved in this debate; it cannot just be something that is talked about. It would give the private members on both sides of the House a chance to prove to the people of this province that we can cooperate with one another. It would give the government a chance to put its money where its mouth is, to put its principles where its mouth is, and it would also give the official opposition an opportunity to prove whether they're serious about cooperating. I think the government would like to know that. This bill is an opportunity to show the people of this province that we have them in mind when we discuss legislation in this House, or whether we only have ourselves in mind and our own political parties. It will give us that opportunity. When the minister sums up, he will be the one that will send the signal to this House of whether there is indeed a spirit of cooperation.

An appeal commission should be set up separately from the commission — changes to section 1 and section 9. The minister could also say whether he's willing — he and his government — to send this bill, before it goes to committee, to the appropriate committee of the House to have an all-party committee come back with some recommendations on what regulations should possibly attend this bill. We're going to have to wait to see whether the minister's directives are the kind that mean abuse or not.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I see where this bill could be a little more honest with the people of British Columbia than bills we've had in the past. I think it's appropriate that government from time to time appoint people by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council — in other words by order-in-council — to carry on jobs for the people of this province. I don't think it's always necessary to go through the civil service hiring route. I think it would say to the people of this province: "Here is a political appointment, not necessarily someone from your own political party but a political appointment by the government to do a job." Judge the job on how the person does the job rather than the circuitous route that all governments take — putting into place a piece of legislation that is supposed to be non-partisan, and then every government from the dawn of civilization and the supposedly non-partisan civil Service working to get around it.

[4:00]

Let's have it out in the open: who is a political appointment; who isn't a political appointment. I don't see any great danger in this bill if we're finally putting something in the open air for everybody to look at. As I said, I'll be supporting this bill. I'm not looking behind the legislation at the motivations of government; I'm taking government at face value in terms of motivation. I'm looking at the piece of legislation itself and saying it's not a bad piece of legislation. I have certain reservations; I think those reservations could be cleared up if the minister shows that he's willing to move in a number of areas to show cooperation and to make this bill into a good piece of legislation.

MR. GABELMANN: The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) got some things right and some things wrong. Maybe the best thing about that is that it's a good argument for increased research funding for members of the House. I won't belabour the point, but the member for Prince Rupert, I think, misinterpreted the role and function of the Public Service Commission as it will be established by this legislation.

It, in fact, is an appeal body and has no other authority whatsoever, and that's what is wrong with the legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what he said.

MR. GABELMANN: No, the member for Prince Rupert was suggesting that there should be a neutral three-person appeal commission. There is; it's called the Public Service Commission under this act, and its only job is to hear appeals. What we need in this province for the non-political appointments in government — and it's this point upon which I agree with the member for Prince Rupert — is an independent Public Service Commission, or some agency, whatever it would be called, which would make those appointments and grant those promotions and movements within the existing public service.

The minister said that what this bill does.... These aren't his exact words, but I was amused by his reference to bringing us in line, in effect, with New Brunswick and Quebec in terms of their legislation. If ever in this country we have seen examples of patronage at work from every level of government it's New Brunswick and Quebec. The grader foreman changes when the government changes, Social Credit stopped it here in 1952, but this new coalition wants to bring it back.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the motivation of the legislation. I understand that there's a genuine and well-meaning attempt to try to rationalize the cumbersome process that has existed in the duality of GERB and the Public Service Commission and the distance from management that was imposed by that kind of structure. I understand all of that. There were lots of problems, and I'm not here to stand up and say that the system we had was correct, But what the government either fails to understand, or has deliberately chosen to, is that by establishing the function of the Public Service Commission as a division of the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services, they have, in fact, established a political determination in respect of hirings and in respect of Promotions and movement within the existing work force of the government. That's the objection.

I have a whole series of other objections about the bill. They will be canvassed in detail in committee stage, I am going to talk about some of the more important ones during this debate in second reading.

What we need to understand about this legislation.... If only one message goes out to the public about this particular bill, it should be that we have departed from the principle that people who work in the non-political part of government, which is the overwhelming majority of them.... They will now have their fate determined — subject to appeal, yes — by the ministries, under the direction of the Provincial Secretary's ministry. That opens the process to patronage, whether it's designed or not. That's the objection that all but one member on this side of the House have with this legislation. There will no longer be an independent, detached-from-government management of the functions of hiring and internal promotion. That's the major concern.

[ Page 5017 ]

Mr. Speaker, there are some things that happen under the aegis of government that need to be independent from government, The Speaker's chair and Speaker's office are the first and most obvious. Others include the auditor-general and the ombudsman. I would also suggest the electoral reform commission, and there are other areas that need to be separate from the line management of various ministries. I would argue — members of our caucus are arguing — that management of the public service also needs to be detached from the political process of line management in various ministries, which is governed in the final analysis by the political minister, as it should be in most areas of government. But there are some things where it shouldn't be, where in fact the minister should not have that political say.

Despite well-meaning intentions expressed in several sections in terms of appointments on merit and so on — and I grant that there is some intention — there is not enough protection. The fundamental flaw is that the final authority is an agent of the ministry of the Provincial Secretary, and therefore of the minister, and not an independent, publicly accountable — perhaps accountable to the Legislature as a whole — agency such as a public service commission.

That's not to suggest that the existing structure is perfect. It isn't. I trust the minister won't come back at me and argue that I want to keep what we've got now. I see the flaws in the system. I watch collective bargaining. I see how management things work, and it's not working, It needs to be changed. But if you're going to make the change, maintain the independence of the agency which does the hiring and all of the management functions in terms of promotion and what not.

There is wide-open space in this legislation for political patronage in a way that — not totally, but in large measure — spelled the end of the coalition government in the late forties and early fifties. It was one of the things, among others, that W.A.C. Bennett traded on very effectively in establishing the long popularity that he had in this province. He was perceived, following the '52 election, to have eliminated patronage within the public service. Whether he did or not is another issue, but he was perceived to have taken on that challenge. I think that was successfully accomplished in large measure. We are slipping back to the days of the coalition with this kind of legislation, and I just want to echo the comments made by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson). The bill, intentionally or not — and I would love to believe it wasn't intentional, but I have some trouble with that — opens the door to patronage in this province simply because there's no independence for the people who make the decisions.

I want to talk about a few of the more major concerns that I have with the legislation, apart from that overriding issue of patronage. Section 2 is, at best, ambiguous. My reading of it, without advice, is that, with the exception of subsection (d), all those matters are precluded from bargaining, should the government choose to issue directives on those issues. There might be arguments made in some cases that those are management rights. But you can't argue that all of those other issues are management rights. Rather than make a long speech about that particular thing now, I'll do it in committee, where we can have some exchange, so that I can understand what it is the minister wants to establish by section 2 and what he means by the word "directives," because I don't know what that means. Then we can have a proper debate about what limitations on collective bargaining are imposed by that particular section.

Let me just back up a little bit and say that one other serious problem with the legislation is in what it doesn't contain. It has eliminated a whole range and a whole raft of provisions that were in the Public Service Act and which, for the most part don't impact — if I can make a verb out of a noun — negatively on unionized employees, because they are protected by the collective agreement. But there are a considerable number of public servants who are not in one of the bargaining units and who, in fact, don't have collective bargaining rights at the present time. Their protections have been in large measure, if not totally, in the act.

Just to pick one out of the air, think of severance and how much is granted. That's now gone. Presumably that's to be bargained. People in bargaining units have got it. But people who aren't in bargaining units now are seemingly without those kinds of protections granted by the more inclusive provisions of the old Public Service Act, the one now being repealed. So I have some very real concerns for the impact on this legislation in its general application for those people who are not represented by one of the three bargaining sectors under the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Continuing on section 2, I talked about the questions of what can be bargained; I worry very much about what that does to the grievance procedure. I hope, specifically, that the minister will assure us all that the grievance procedure isn't wiped out, and the grievance provisions in collective agreements aren't wiped out. as the possible result of a directive under section 2 of....

HON. MR. CHABOT: No way.

MR. GABELMANN: He says, "No way," and I hope that's to be the case, but I don't know that the legislation guarantees that. I have, frankly, more confidence in the words of the law than I do in the words of the minister. Surprised?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: That's right. It could be that we won't always have this very perfect minister in this job. We might get somebody who has some political motivations, instead of non-partisan objectives like this minister has. Having said that, how absurd it sounds, eh? Therefore I worry now, too, Mr. Speaker, about the minister's word. I would prefer to have these kinds of protections guaranteed by law, if they cannot be.... I prefer that they be done by collective agreement, frankly. That would be my first approach. And if they aren't there, they should certainly be protected by law.

Section 5, carrying on — and I'm not going to be long about it. I worry about the whole concept of a public service now open to having very different standards in different ministries. When you have policies being established ministry by ministry, in terms of....

Interjection.

[ Page 5018 ]

MR. GABELMANN: The directives address that? This is the value, Mr. Speaker — and that's why I'm going to be brief on these other issues — of committee stage; I want to consider what he said, and be able to have further debate about it, but we can't do it in this context of second reading debate.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: That's an old trick.

One of the very serious concerns about section 5 is that it appears to restrict the rights of a public servant, who lives, for example, in Fort St. John, from applying — if it's so directed — for a job opening in Vancouver, because the government is now going to have the right to say what restrictions will apply on promotion and advancement within the public service. We lose the principle that people can enter the public service at an entry-level job and can work their way up through the public service with a view, someday, to becoming deputy minister. That's the old, traditional kind of role that we have seen in the public service, and it's now gone, with this particular section. The fact that occupational groups or position levels or geographical constraints can be placed upon promotion.... Government can now say to an individual: "You may have all of the qualifications to move from your job in Fort St. John to a better job in Vancouver or Victoria, but we're not going to let you." That's not right. It's wrong, within principles of public service administration, in my view. I really do hope that that will be addressed in the committee stage process, with a view, perhaps, to some amendments.

Let me tell you what can happen under section 6, Mr. Speaker.

[4:15]

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: We'll get back to that in committee stage.

Let me tell you what can happen under section 6, as I read the legislation. An employee can have worked for the government for 10 or 15 years with a perfect record, can apply for a promotion or a transfer, and can — not necessarily will, but can — go back on probation and therefore be subject to dismissal. Simply because section 6 allows probation to be reinstated for transferred or promoted employees. There is no protection. It might be that what the minister wanted to have in the legislation was some probationary time for the person in their new job, so that the probation applied to the new position. It doesn't say that. A person can lose their employment. If they lose that job, they don't burnp back down necessarily; they can, but there's no protection for that. The government has the ability, as I read it, to get rid of somebody they don't like by promoting them. Maybe that's not the intention; I'd love to believe it wasn't the intention, but it appears to be allowed under section 6 of this legislation.

In addition, what we have established here is this principle of the probationary period being six months equivalent. With the increased amount of part-time work, and the encouragement of part-time work in our society, you're going to have people who will be working for the government for a year — in some cases for more than a year — whose probation will not be up. That affects directly a variety of benefits under the collective agreement. For example, maternity protection or short-term illness protection will be lost to those part-time workers for a year or perhaps two years, while they attempt to complete their probationary period. We don't need to wait two years to do an assessment on an employee who happens to be a part-time employee.

Again, it seems like a nice clean way, a neat kind of package. In drafting a piece of legislation like this, it seems clean and appropriate. It seems fair on the surface, but it isn't, because there are a great many benefits that are not available to probationary employees which are available to people who have passed their probation. As I say, that's again going to most likely impact on women. It's women who are affected primarily by maternity benefits — we haven't yet got to the European standard of letting men benefit from those provisions. Nevertheless, the lengthened probationary period is something that is going to impact on women in particular, and in the nursing profession it's a particular concern.

Section 7 seems a bit weak in terms of its drafting. The commission is established but doesn't really have any terms of reference. It certainly doesn't seem to have any independence. It reports not to the House or to some neutral agency but to the minister.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, it is. Right. I told you earlier that I had some complaints and concerns about the old.... It is, but it doesn't spell its terms out clearly enough for my satisfaction. It really doesn't even tell us whether or not they're full-time. Not that that's a particular concern one way or the other; I don't know how much work will be involved in this particular job But it does not seem to spell out in proper detail how this whole commission is going to be appointed and how it's going to be accountable.

Section 9 raises the possibility that there won't ever be any appeals to the commission, because the commission is going to have the right to determine how costs are going to be applied. Under this section, the commission could say to every appellant: "If you fail, even though you think you've got a good case — and it's not frivolous, so we're going to hear it — you're going to have to bear the costs. Not only your own costs of coming down to a commission hearing, but also the cost of the appeal borne by the government." It's going to be open to the commission to apply costs however they determine those costs should be applied. They could very simply establish a rule that says that failed appeals will be charged to the appellant. That's wrong. If an appellant believes they have a case, and the commission judges that it's not frivolous or vexatious, then that appellant should feel free to make the appeal without worrying about the financial implications beyond his or her own particular costs. It seems a fair principle, one that I expect the minister would agree with. But the legislation, I think, is too vague. It's either sloppily written, or my interpretation is incorrect — which is always open, too. I suspect from the way it's written that the policy of cost can be determined by the commission, which could make their job quite easy, because nobody is going to appeal.

Section 16. I'd like to know from the minister whether this is the definitive statement on the government's policy on mandatory retirement.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No change in policy.

[ Page 5019 ]

MR. GABELMANN: That means that the policy we've had on the whole philosophical question of mandatory retirement stays as it was, and that the government is signaling that it's not yet ready to come down with its position on mandatory retirement.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: It's premature. You're scared to take on the political issue.

One of the concerns which can be raised in any number of places, I guess, is the concern for unrepresented employees — people who do not have severance provisions built into their employment contract with the government, Also, there is a whole range of people who are not eligible because they're considered to be management employees who aren't OIC. Without getting into the details of it in the debate, there is a whole range of people who work for the government, and until now they have had their provisions of severance pay protected. It's spelled out in the Public Service Act. They will no longer have that particular protection, Presumably they have the right — they always have the right, I suppose — to go to court on it. But that's an expensive and ridiculous option. All we need to have are some kinds of specific policies.

Those are some of the major concerns that I have about the legislation. In wrapping up, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the importance of all of those issues, in my own mind they all pale into insignificance when compared to the basic premise of this bill, which is that those — hopefully — neutral functions of hiring and promoting public servants have now become politicized under the Ministry of Provincial Secretary. I find that deplorable. For that reason alone, I find no difficulty at all in voting against this legislation. It's wrong in principle for the government to take on those responsibilities. They belong in the neutral arena, not in the political one.

MR. LEA: I rise under standing order 42. I think I was misunderstood. I agree with the member for North Island that the commission is there solely to hear appeals, but I don't think that that should be the appeal body. There should be a further step in the appeal procedure: when one commissioner hears a case and makes a decision, it shouldn't be appealed back to that commission to set up. There should be another commission to hear the appeal.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member rose under standing order 42 to state that a material part of his speech may have been misunderstood, which is entirely appropriate to standing order 42.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, he did indicate standing order 42; it was clear to the Chair.

MR. COCKE: Let me first say that our present system is less than perfect. I recognized that when we were government; I have recognized it since, and I thought about it before.

It's very difficult to depoliticize the hiring and firing, if you will, and all the attendant problems around the public service. Having said that, I don't think that this bill takes us in the proper direction at all. I would have suspected that the Provincial Secretary would have spent his time, as he so often does. thoughtfully working out a system that would depoliticize the public service situation. He did it, Mr. Speaker, over some kind of brew that.... I have no idea of what was in it, because what we have here is a total politicization. The Provincial Secretary hires everyone in the province who works for the government, according to this bill.

MR. LAUK: Political boss — Tammany Hall.

MR. COCKE: That's right — he's a czar, through his deputy, Mr. Speaker, and that is not the direction that we should have been going in. This is a real shock to me, because that minister has never shown great signs of politicizing in the number of years that I've been here — that's after the hour of 12 and before the hour of five to one, but all the rest of the time he's been pretty political. He's sure pretty political in this bill.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not true.

MR. COCKE: It is true. This bill is entirely giving over to him, and through him to the government, the right to do anything they want vis-à-vis hiring.

I read that merit section, and I'll tell you something: you can interpret that any way you want. You can classify persons without or with merit, depending upon their political stripes or their age or whether you like their looks or any of that stuff.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You didn't listen to my speech.

[4:30]

MR. COCKE: His speech is about the same as every other speech he's made in this House: lots of words but not too much substance, particularly when it comes to interpreting what he's saying here. It's clear to me and to my colleagues that what he's done is taken from an imperfect system.... Incidentally, that imperfect system is one that one can politicize. I agree. I'm not going to throw a lot of bouquets at our present system. But he's made it worse. He has taken unto his ministry the right to do all the hiring.

The appeal procedure is marvellous. He appoints the tribunal, now called the Public Service Commission. He has only done that, I suppose, to blow smoke at this Legislature, because it's not a Public Service Commission at all. It's a body to whom you appeal your problems, but it's certainly not a Public Service Commission. It's set up here and then it gives that Public Service Commission, whom he appoints, the final word. When you sit on the Public Service Commission you rather think that it's not a good idea to displease the minister. Wouldn't you think that, my colleague from Nanaimo? Of course. You don't want to anger the minister, because you will find that there's an order-in-council the next day saying that your services are no longer required.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the act.

MR. COCKE: It's not an act yet, thankfully, Mr. Speaker; it's a bill. It's not an act until the Speaker stands up and declares it an act, and then it won't be an act until such time as this cabinet decides to bring it into proclamation. But it is a bill indicating that the minister has all the power vested in him that has been the property of the Public Service

[ Page 5020 ]

Commission, and then some. And not only to all the government departments but also the ombudsman, the auditor-general.... All of them have to be nice to that minister in order to get their staff.

Mr. Speaker, why couldn't this government have shown some leadership and brought in a truly independent body to do this work? How could we be anything but suspicious when all the power is vested in that minister and through him to the government?

I have a number of questions that I would like to ask, but I don't fall into the trap of asking the minister questions in second reading, because when you do that and he answers off the record, then you really don't know what you have of substance, do you, Mr. Speaker? So all I can do is just make a few comments at this time, telling that minister that he should have taken this bill and used it for something far more satisfactory than bringing it into this House. Maybe he should have used it as a White Paper to test the public and find out how they felt about it. But I'll bet if he did he would find that he should be going the other way as opposed to this way.

I believe it's going to be an expensive proposition for employees. I agree with my colleague the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) that the fastest way you can get rid of public servants under this new proposition is promote them, and when they don't meet the probation, can them and they're gone. No appeal, no nothing. Read it, Mr. Member. I'm sure that that's the way it works. So if you've got somebody upcountry somewhere who doesn't comb his or her hair right, just give them a little promotion. They start all over again under probation, they don't meet the probation requirements — which can be interpreted any way you like, merit be darned; this thing on its merit is certainly hard to interpret at best — and then they're on their way down the road.

I think the minister should have thought this bill out far more carefully. After all, this government now needs nothing more than something to restore public confidence. They've lost it all. It's about time they started working on that public confidence, and the way to do that is to bring in good, solid, honest legislation. They've blown the opportunity again with Bill 35. They could have been leaders in Canada, but instead it's back to the old trough, back to the old pork barrel. If they're Socred, they're fine, and if they're not, they don't meet the merit requirement. This doesn't permeate just the upper echelons of the civil service or the public service. This goes right down to clerks 1, 2, 3 and all the rest of them, The minister should hang his head for having brought a bill like this to the Legislature.

One other comment. I was sitting here seething a little because my colleague from North Island stole everything that I wanted to talk about. I do think it's interesting that we've maintained what was, in the old act, mandatory retirement at 65. A lot of people out there feel that that mandatory retirement proposition denies civil rights to certain human beings on the fact of the planet. I'm getting dangerously close to that time when I might be thinking about that a good deal. One of the things you will note, Mr. Speaker, is that it doesn't apply to politicians, however. We apply it to the people who work for the Legislature, who work for the people of British Columbia, but we don't apply it to ourselves. Interesting, isn't it?

I think something has to be thought out vis-à-vis mandatory retirement. I know that in tough times people say: "We must retire people not only at 65, but much earlier in order to get the young people into the workforce." I think there are other ways of doing that, and one way is to pep up an economy. I'm not sure this bunch will ever do that. In any event, that's something of interest to me. I don't know how it also affects consequentially pension plans and some of the other aspects that surround retirement, but I don't think we can get into that in second reading. That's something we will have to ask the minister. I hope he has some ready reference, crib notes or something, when he comes back for committee stage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have to go on and on forever just to tell you that I feel the bill does not perform a good service for the people in this province. I believe the bill politicizes the whole public service much more than it has been since 1952. Give W.A.C. Bennett credit — he did his damnedest to depoliticize that corrupt old gang that used to run this province. The Conservatives and the Liberals and their coalition were a corrupt old gang; there's no question of it. W.A.C. Bennett tried his best to get away from that kind of political appointment, and this is what we get.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'll give you an example of what happens in provinces. In Saskatchewan, my father-in-law ran the liquor store. He was an old CCFer but the Conservatives didn't seem to mind. But when the Libs came in, in the early forties, he and everybody else went down the tube. Had a job one day; it was gone the next. That's the kind of world you get into when you get into the proposition that politicizes the public service.

I recognize here that the firing element is the same as it has always been. But I also recognize that the hiring element is much too close to government to suit my wishes. The minister shakes his head. Yet who hires everybody? He deputizes the hiring of every public servant in this province, not only in his own ministry but in the Ministries of Health, Education and every other department of government — and some at relative arm's length from government. That is inappropriate.

The minister can sum up when he stands to close debate. I would like to hear what he has to say about that, and how he can defend this rather obvious piece of politicizing that's going on. I'm not going to wish you good luck with your comments. You can sit down now, because I'm sure that there are other members here who are going to want to get in and flay you just a little bit, When the minister sums up, and possibly when we get to committee stage a few days from now, he'll be able to answer some questions. I thank you for your very kind attention, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MITCHELL: I think the first thing we should attack this bill on is its leaving out the most important section that, I believe, the administration of W.A.C. Bennett, when he brought in a public service bill.... Section 4 of the old Public Service Act says: "The duties of the commission are to develop and maintain a competent and efficient public service...." That was the intent of it. You must look at the intent of any such legislation, at the total picture and not at certain individuals or situations. This is why I think each one of us in the Legislature must be striving continually to know that we have, as backup people, the civil servants for each and every resident of the province, the most competent people available. If there are any problems with the competency of any civil servant, whether it's for a short period of time or a

[ Page 5021 ]

long period of time, the responsibility must rest with government at the management level, cabinet level or middle management. I think this is the important part: no one in the opposition is against the developing of a competent civil service. I think the public has a right to demand that. I think we have a responsibility to ensure it. This bill leaves out that main duty of a commission. There is no mention in all this legislation that you are out to develop a competent civil service.

[4:45]

There are a few of us who can remember back to the thirties and forties, when the political corruption wielded by government in the appointment of civil servants — and those were appointments right down to the grader operator in each and every one of the ridings of this province.... This bill opens that up again. This bill specifies that the government, through the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary, can specify and write a set of directives that lays down the geographical area or locale an applicant must come from. Can you imagine? In my riding they want to appoint a grader operator who happens to be a good Social Crediter, and he might live in the small community of Shirley. They can write a directive that the grader operator needs certain qualifications and that he must come from Shirley. It could be any area in your riding, Mr. Speaker. or in that of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet). He might have someone he wants to appoint. He writes the qualifications and designates the area that that person should come from, or that the application should come from. There's only one person there who may be able to drive a grader or do a welding job and happens to be a member of a certain political party or a certain service group. These are the directives that can come out of one person, and this is what the original public service bill was designed to eliminate. It was designed to bring in competent and dedicated personnel working within the ministry, completely divorced from the changes that may happen in this House.

As the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) stated earlier, there are a lot of people who have dedicated their whole lives to work in the public service. They do come into the service with stars in their eyes. I think this is a good thing — that people should have an opportunity and should have the initiative to shoot for the top. But slowly the political erosion of appointments in the civil service.... They wiped out the deputy positions; they are now OICs. They wiped out levels all the way down in the civil service that orders-in-council can supersede and appointments are made. I think this is the great danger that the public, who will not really understand what has taken place in here.... A lot of the detail that they tried to get in Bill 3 and some of the other dirty dozen legislation that came in in July '83 has been reworded and rechanged so that they now come up in the directives that the minister can make through his various levels of government.

We're taking a large step backward, away from what was pioneered in the sixties when the Public Service Act was first set up to make public servants non-political. I think all civil servants have their political biases and their political opinions, because they are no different than any other Canadians. We all have what we think is right and what we think is wrong. But the competency and the job description should not be at the whim and to change to fit the certain vacancy that may arise. I say that the government has taken a large step backward.

Though I've never had the responsibility of making decisions, I can see the mistakes that may have been in the original piece of legislation. I can see the hurdles to change some of the bureaucracy that has grown and the interpretations of what is merit and what is qualifications. As I've said many times in this House, what we are qualified to do an excellent job of today.... Seven years down the road those qualifications and that job may no longer be there. I can understand that, and that is why I have continually said in every session since 1979, when we have some major changes to be made in any piece of legislation that is going to affect 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 British Columbia residents, when we are going to be able to put blinkers on the stars that some people may have when they enter the civil service, the desire to move ahead and not feel that they may be shuffled over here to a promotion and find that by taking that promotion it gives the deputy minister, through the Provincial Secretary, an opportunity to fire them.... These are the sort of fears that we don't want to have in our civil service. We want to have people who are looking ahead to take a promotion, to move up the ladder. I think initiative and ambition should be something that we openly promote. I don't mean the backstabbing that may go in the office politics that we all accept and know exists, but that within the legislation some sound directive should be given.

This is why I say very humbly, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: this is a serious change in our public service legislation. To do what the original section 4 said, to build a competent civil service, I think this legislation should be sent to a parliamentary committee and that we should invite every person who feels that their promotion or their job description may be altered or bent a little to sit down and give their views and to give some suggestions based on how they feel,

I say this from an old person who believes that there are a lot of people on the shop floor who can solve problems that management never see. I know the minister may feel that because you've been voted into a position, you have all the answers. I sincerely say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, that I don't think we as politicians have all the answers, But I do say all the answers are available from the people who are going to have to live with this legislation, who know from firsthand experience the problems that arose under the old legislation.

There are parts of the old legislation that should be streamlined. I accept the minister's statement that any promotions had to go up through the bureaucracy, and then they had to come back down through the commission through another set of bureaucracy. I know this is wrong. But I don't think those safeguards built into the original piece of legislation because of the political corruption that existed under the coalition Liberal and Conservative government should simply be eliminated and placed in the hands of another political level.

I think the old legislation could be corrected in a safer manner for the 40,000 British Columbia residents that are going to be living under this. I think that the other 2.5 million people should be able to expect a competent, fearless civil service and not have a civil service that is running for cover, always looking over its shoulders. The attitude of the general public is that it's not how competent you are, but it's the way that the directive was written whether you are hired or not.

I ask the minister to bring to his cabinet colleagues' attention that we on this side of the House are prepared to give the time and the effort and the input and the cooperation to

[ Page 5022 ]

look for the best piece of legislation in Canada. We are prepared to listen to experts from the shop floor who know the problems that existed in the old legislation. They could bring in suggestions, and we could also bring in the expertise of personnel, management, consultants from both private industry and from the educational halls of learning who have studied the problems of personnel management, who understand the various levels of what merit is and what it isn't and also those who are prepared to bring into 1985 the new technology, to recognize the new trades and the new trainings and the new skills that we need.

I think that a parliamentary committee, which we have under our constitution, should be established and be activated. This is the type of legislation that we could have good input into. We could have good input, and we could have an excellent piece of legislation when we finished with it. I don't think that we should jam it through and have a return of the political corruption that took place in the civil service not that long ago, Mr. Speaker. You and I can remember it very clearly. We grew up in that era, and we remember it. We know friends who were fired, and we know neighbours who were hired not because of their skills, their ability or their family needs but because they had political input. They had a political card in their pocket that happened to be different than the previous person in that job and happened to be the same colour as the change in government.

[5:00]

I sincerely ask that the minister give that consideration, and when he sums it up, to give his reasons why he wants it to go to a parliamentary committee or his reasons why he is not prepared to allow it to have the proper input that I know British Columbians can give to it.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, the bill that we see before us, brought in at a time when people were led to believe there was going to be a little bit of housekeeping legislation, is anything but housekeeping. I suppose the only thing it has in common with housekeeping is its sweeping nature. It is, however, turning back the clock, and I think we should look at the kind of thing that went on and led to the formation of a public service commission.

Mr. Speaker, I commend to your reading The Squire of Kootenay West, the biography of Bert Herridge, a renowned British Columbia politician who served both in this House and in Ottawa. At one time he was a Liberal, and when the Liberals were in power he campaigned for Sid Leary, who at one time was the Minister of Public Works in the riding of Slocan-Kaslo, which now is part of my riding. Sid Leary, of course — as a bit of an aside — used to own a sawmill. If you've ever noticed the preponderance of Howe truss bridges made out of wood in and about my riding, you might be interested to know that the Minister of Public Works found it rather interesting to build bridges in the Kootenays, because it derived him a double benefit. Not only did his sawmill become very active during those periods, but it also was good politics to build bridges across all the rivers and creeks and so on. So it served him doubly well.

That is the kind of thing that was voted out in 1952. That is the era we're talking about, an era that I thought we would never return to. In fact, in an election, I think in the late twenties, in which the Liberals had been swept out of office, Sid Leary sent out a letter that said: "I can sweep my old town" — meaning Nakusp — "with a bigger majority than the last time in spite of what anyone says, and I know I have the Lower Arrow Lakes solid behind me. So talk and boost Sid Leary, and you'll have my backing to your good. Furthermore, there will be considerably more patronage shown our own boys than during my last term."

Mr. Speaker, I don't think anything else so graphically demonstrates the danger of what we have before us today. When we start giving out powers for personnel management to the minister.... The minister may direct, for instance, without any qualification, the job evaluation and classification or standards of job performance in employee conduct. If this power were given to the minister, he would have on his own, without any kind of input from outside the community.... A recent case involving a teacher in Langley comes to mind. If it were my choice, I know what kind of decision I would make in such a case about an employee's conduct, but I don't know that it should be given to any one person.

Mr. Speaker, we worked very hard on bringing about some changes in rules to the House. I wonder if this bill should be debated under the old rules of the House, or whether it should not be held over to a new session and reintroduced. Take the opportunity that we'll have to put such a bill into a committee where witnesses can be called, affected people can be heard. A bill such as this is fundamental; it touches a fundamental chord in the whole history of British Columbia, and brings back to memory those days of patronage which was the whole method of operation of the Liberals and the Conservatives when they would change office here in British Columbia, I think we could have a new beginning — to be redundant. We could have a much more appropriate look at this by letting outside people — affected parties — come in and comment on the terms and ramifications of this piece of legislation.

I can't think of a worse time for this legislation to be considered — when it's anticipated that this legislative session might last no more than a few more days, or another week. If it is held over to another session, then it really doesn't matter what some of the details of that might be. The bill could probably accomplish a great deal; it could serve as a starting point. If it were properly amended, maybe it could become an improvement. Anyone who looks at the very basic change in this piece of legislation would realize that it is.... In my mind it is a retrograde step. If this province needs anything, it is a symbol. If the Premier is going to speak this evening and come out with a new message, then that new message should be backed up by new action and a new attitude in this House.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This is going to affect the way in which the public service works; it is going to affect a lot more than just the people who work for the Public Service Commission. If we return to the old way of doing things through patronage, it is going to affect the way that people do business with the government. It is going to be a very retrograde step. I don't think that progressive countries are characterized by blatant and inefficient patronage. Countries which are backward are characterized by such things. If this government wants to show a new face, if this government wants to begin to build with the people of British Columbia, then it should show that they trust the people of British Columbia to consult and to be part of such a fundamental change.

[ Page 5023 ]

Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity to reject confrontation. This is an opportunity to embark upon cooperation and consultation with the people of this province in terms of the way in which we do business, in which we change legislation. This piece of legislation is not solving one of the major problems on the lips of people in British Columbia: that is. where can I get work? How can I feed my family? This not a response to one of the major problems facing people here today.

This piece of legislation is a surprise. Where did it come from? Maybe the government has found some problems, but they certainly haven't communicated about them. I listened to the minister's opening remarks, and while I was at one time a minister of the Crown and faced some of the problems of getting staff, establishing positions, re-evaluations and so on, I am not aware that this has been one of the major obstacles to economic recovery in this province. When a government takes it upon itself to impose another solution for which where's no real, apparent problem — to legislate again the lives of our citizens rather than consulting our citizens — then we're continuing down the wrong road.

This is just another step in the direction that was embarked upon by this government in 1983. Maybe we should let this piece of legislation die after some debate in second reading. It really shouldn't be proceeded with this piece of legislation could wait. If the government wants to send a positive signal to people in the community, to the public service, to labour, to management — to everyone — then they could send a signal that they're ready to listen. They could put this piece of legislation into our new rules framework, which sets a framework for a real consultative process.

This bill, if reintroduced in the next session. would be a prime candidate, I would say, to be discussed in a standing committee where witnesses can be called, where people can be consulted, and where, instead of authoritatively legislating peoples' lives, we could consult with them, participate with them, and come up with something that will serve this province rather than disserve this province.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this debate because I have a couple of specific questions, if the minister would pay attention to them for me. They particularly have to do with the whole concept of affirmative action. The minister no doubt anticipated I was going to talk about it.

Judge Abella just completed a report for the federal government on inequality in employment. One of the things she did was to draw attention to the inequality of the status of women in the federal public service. I'm going to talk about the provincial public service too; Fin not totally out of order. I want to show you that they're both the same. really; the situation is bad for both. Her statistics showed that whereas the proportion of women in the public service was 40.6 percent, those in management positions were 5.9; that is, 40.6 percent of employees in the federal public service are women, but only 5.9 percent of all of employees in the federal public service are women who hold management positions.

Maybe the minister would say British Columbia is different. I hope he will be able to do so, because the latest Public Service Commission printout I have is for March 198 1. The last figures....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mrs. Ostry is at the UN, isn't she?

[5:15]

MS. BROWN: Mrs. Ostry may be with the UN; I'm talking about the women in the public service here in British Columbia now. saying that the last figures I could get were from March 1981 — but I'm hoping that the minister has more up-to-date figures than this.

Certainly the last figures I had access to show that British Columbia is every bit as bad as, if not worse than, the federal House in that regard.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Put a question on the order paper.

MS. BROWN: I don't want to put the question on the order paper. We are debating a piece of legislation that is going to affect directly the whole idea of affirmative action in the Public Service Commission.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We don't give preferential treatment to either group.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could do anything about the minister interrupting me and my train of thought, as I am trying to respond to the legislation.

A number of the recommendations of the Abella report, which is the one dealing with equality in employment, are centred on the concept of affirmative action. In addition, Mr. Speaker — and this is not just federal — in February 1983 one of the employees of the Attorney-General's ministry conducted some research into the status of women in that ministry and brought forth a number of recommendations under the heading of "An Action Plan."

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'll send a copy to the minister I think he said he's never heard of it.

It said: "Employment issues affecting women in the public service necessarily require a coordinated approach across government ministries."

If this legislation is going to allow each ministry to do its own thing, what we're going to run into....

HON. MR. CHABOT. I'll give them direction.

MS. BROWN: The minister says he will give them direction, which I have no doubt he will do.

If the Public Service Commission took responsibility for trying at the provincial level to implement some of the recommendations on affirmative action that have been made at the provincial level — some of the recommendations made since 1967 through the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and some of the recommendations made by this recent report tabled in the federal House in October 1984 around the whole area of affirmative action and the importance of affirmative action to women in the public sector gaining equality — there would be more chance of that happening.

One thing we have learned as women in the labour force or wherever is that in order to have equality across the board, some one body has to be responsible for coordinating the changes that have to be made. It's not good enough to send

[ Page 5024 ]

out a directive — the minister says he's going to be directing them — to all of the ministers, saying: "Pull up your socks and do something about the equality of women in your particular ministry." The plan of action submitted in February 1983 through the women's program of the Attorney-General's ministry made this absolutely clear: what we need is coordination right across all of the ministries. Who is going to be responsible for implementing an affirmative action plan in the public service of British Columbia once the Public Service Commission disappears? That was one of the responsibilities that the commission had mandated to them. They were to see to it that upgrading, access, opportunities and those kinds of things were available, regardless of sex, marital status, age, or whatever, to members of the public service. But in addition to that, they were to find out where the imbalance was and try, through the vehicle of affirmative action plans, to right that imbalance. This piece of legislation throws all of that out the window. The concern that I have is that when this type of legislation is being drafted, clearly the minister is not having any input from either the women's programs office in the Ministry of Labour or the Attorney-General — or wherever it exists.

It's very clear that if the minister responsible had had input from the women working in the public sector, the alarm would have been sounded, and the minister would have incorporated into the legislation some kind of protection for the affirmative action concept and some kind of assurance that affirmative action plans, where they had already begun or where they were in the formative state or where they had not even been thought of, would have some avenue to assure that they were put into place, and that the women in those ministries and in those departments would continue in terms of moving towards full equality. This hasn't happened. Nowhere in the bill is there any indication that the minister is even aware of the inequality which presently exists.

When the minister stands in his place to close debate, I'm hoping that he will give us some up-to-date statistics on the position of women in the public service at this time. I am hoping that he will be able to tell us that the statistics which formally showed that most of them were concentrated in the clerical sector and the service sector of the commission have been changed. I don't believe it has. If it hasn't been changed, then the minister has a responsibility to see to it that the kind of affirmative action plan which will make that change possible is enshrined in any legislation which he brings to the floor of the House impacting on the Public Service Commission or on the public sector workers.

Do you know what happens this year, Mr. Speaker? This is the last year of the United Nations Decade for Women. In June of this year the government of Canada is going to have to go to Nairobi to that international conference to report on the past ten years and say what the government has done at the federal, provincial, municipal and local levels to bring about full equality for women in employment and before the law. That's what the government is going to have to do in June of this year. I don't know whether the minister responsible for this legislation took that into account when he drafted this bill. Clearly the struggle towards full equality is going to be retarded as a direct result of this piece of legislation. Nowhere in it is there any protection for affirmative action plans or even for the concept of affirmative action.

The minister knows as well as everyone else that there have been a number of traditional reasons why women in the public sector have been confined to the low-paying areas of the public sector. We know that the trade union, the BC Government Employees' Union, through negotiation, has been trying to right that imbalance through the collective bargaining process. But what we also know, and what has been reiterated again and again, and again in this last study on inequality, is that it has to be mandated. There have to be statutory provisions which protect those affirmative action plans. It can't be done voluntarily; it hasn't worked. The most frightening statistic we have is that over the last 70 years the wage gap between men and women has improved by 11 percent — in 70 years! I'm not a mathematical genius, but at the rate we're going it seems to me we're looking at close to 700 years before we close that wage gap 100 percent.

The minister is reasonable, and has been known to be a rational person. I know that when you bring these kinds of figures and statistics to his attention he will recognize.... Even at this moment he is probably drafting the necessary amendment to the legislation, or even contemplating pulling the legislation, or hoisting it, Surely the minister is not suggesting that women in the public service are going to have to wait 700 years, or close to 700 years, to have that wage gap closed. It's not necessary; it doesn't have to take 700 years. There is a vehicle which can speed that process up, and it's known as affirmative action. The minister says: "I don't show preferential treatment to anybody." In fact, preferential treatment has been shown over the years. It's not his fault, but he now has the ability and the opportunity to do something about the fact that preferential treatment has been shown over the years, and that that preferential treatment has resulted in the kind of wage gap that exists between female workers and male workers in the public service — and I'm talking here about your clerical workers and your service sector workers.

It's not good enough to say that anybody can do any work and they have the freedom to move freely from one kind of job to another, because that's not true. When you have the kind of barriers to opportunity and to access in terms of the stream that takes you to the top — to the deputy minister level — that women have traditionally had in the public sector, then it's not good enough to say: "Okay, the barriers are all gone; now you can be equal." Studies have shown that there has to be a bit of a boost. Something special has to be done, not just to encourage the women, but also to open the doors, to make the opportunities available to them. Just a little bit extra to make up for those years when they got so much less.

[5:30]

That's what affirmative action is all about: showing preferential treatment for a limited period of time. It doesn't say that each person can get up and decide on their own: "Okay, I'll give you preferential treatment and I won't give it to you." It calls for a systematic plan to be put into place; it has to be acceptable to the trade union involved, and then it has to be protected by statute. That's what has to happen; and that, Mr. Speaker, is not going to happen if this piece of legislation goes through.

As women, one of the things we have learned down through the years is that we can't rely on individual circumstances. It's not good enough to say that some people will do this and other people won't. Take the section dealing with the restricted postings — and this applies to men as well as women: how do you protect workers who, for some reason or another, are not held in the highest esteem by the person making the decision about the posting? How do you ensure that merit does not become a political issue? How do you ensure that merit is not an issue which is really patronage in

[ Page 5025 ]

disguise? You do that by having it dealt with by an independent commission. You don't change it and decide that each area or each ministry can make those kinds of decisions.

It's been said before, and I think it bears repeating, that the Public Service Commission is not the creation of the New Democratic Party. We weren't the people who put it in place. It was the original Social Credit government under the original Social Credit Premier Bennett who decided that, in order to bring an end to corruption and discrimination and patronage in the public service, the commission was a vehicle that could be used.

Why are we going back 40 or 50 years? Why are we going back to the Dark Ages? In fact, a lot of inherent discrimination against women in the workforce happened in those years before the commission. Women are very vulnerable, and particularly dislike having to rely on an individual to decide that they have merit or they don't have merit. In order for fairness to exist, it can't depend on one person making a judgement about what is merit and what isn't merit and what is merit today and what is not merit tomorrow.

The minister has not been able — and I sat here during his introduction of the bill — to give us an explanation of why these changes are needed at this time.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down and I'll tell you.

MS. BROWN: You're going to have your turn. You be a good little boy, and you'll have your turn.

The minister had his opportunity when he introduced the bill and he didn't give us a valid reason then. You know, there are so many ways in which the rights of the workers can be contravened by this bill. My colleagues have touched on a number of them. If someone is critical of a ministry, that person can be posted to another area. They have to go through another probationary period. If they fail to pass that probationary period because of some mysterious, undiagnosed illness known as lack of merit, out they go. Really what we've got is Bill 3 revisited. We've got "firing without cause" revisited. But as my colleagues have dealt with that in great detail, I'm not going to stress that point.

But I really do want to stress the point about the women in the public sector. We look at all the jurisdictions and the kinds of legislation they are introducing to ensure that once women get on the stream they can continue to work their way up through the system. How is that going to fit in to this new piece of legislation? We have Sweden and other countries introducing legislation around parenting leave. We're still fighting in this province about maternity leave. How is that going to be dealt with, once we no longer have the Public Service Commission, and everybody's at the mercy of their own ministry? This is really a giant step backwards. It's a step that's going to create great hardship for women.

To be happening at this particular time, in this particular year.... Even though the United Nations indicated that we had a decade — 1975 to 1985 — to do something about the status of women, the reality is that we've been fighting much longer than ten years to change our status. Some of us have been at it for a very long time, and we still find, looking at the statistics today, that after 70 years the wage gap has only moved 11 percent. We still find, when we look at the federal civil service, that while making up 40.6 percent of the service we're still in only 5.9 percent of the management and administrative jobs. This is after many, many years of fighting for the kind of legislation that would give us the tools to do the job.

Instead of going forward, we find ourselves in this province in a situation where a bill is being introduced which is going to deprive us of the most effective tool that we have to deal with our inequality in the public sector. It doesn't matter that the minister says: "I will issue the directive." He's a minister today, he may not be the minister tomorrow. Even if he is the minister tomorrow, who is to say that he may not change his mind? Everyone knows that men are always changing their minds.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, oh! Vicious attack.

MS. BROWN: It would be a very unwise woman indeed who would stake her future....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Is that a sexist remark?

MS. BROWN: Definitely. I think you should give as good as you get.

In all seriousness, I want to ask the minister if he has given thought to the affirmative action plan, which we anticipated, in this final year of the decade, would be fully in place throughout the public service. If he has, would he be willing to tell us whether he is going to amend this legislation in committee stage, or if in fact he is going to hoist this legislation now that this has been brought to his attention, or precisely what kind of machinery is being put into place to ensure that the affirmative action plan can be implemented? I want to draw the minister's attention, if he doesn't have a copy of it, to the action plan which was prepared for the Attorney-General's ministry in February 1983. In the section dealing with recruitment, promotion and career-path training, it recommended that there be a coordinated approach going right across all ministries. In addition, it recommended that this area be given the highest priority.

I also want to ask the minister if he would reassure the House as to the statistical changes — oh, here is my computer printout — which must have taken place since March, 1981, when, in fact, the percentage of women in administration and management at the top levels, provincially, was far worse than the percentage which I quoted about the federal House and the federal public sector.

Mr. Speaker. The affirmative action statistics which were released recently — in January, 1985 — by Manitoba indicate that affirmative action has been working and does work when it is protected by statute. The gender pay gap, for example, in the public sector in Manitoba has narrowed dramatically. In 1984, the female average salary for a provincial sector worker was 73 percent of that of her male counterpart. I'm going to ask the minister to give us the figures for British Columbia for that same year, 1984. I don't know if the minister is taking notes or not, Mr. Speaker, but I'm asking for the statistics on the female average salary for a provincial public sector worker — the percentage of that of her male counterpart. In fact, in Manitoba in 1973 it was 55 percent. As a direct result of implementing an affirmative action plan and protecting it by statute, it is now up to 73 percent. That's how dramatically the gap has been narrowed,

I want to find out from the minister if there are any plans for an overall coordinated affirmative action plan for the public service in British Columbia in this year 1985, the last year in the international decade, as outlined by the United

[ Page 5026 ]

Nations. Because I am quite sure — at least, we have been told — that the federal government has been in touch with all of the provinces to find out to what extent the last ten years have been used constructively to close the inequality gap between women and men in economics, the law and other areas. That report has to be in to the federal government so that the national government of Canada can go to that international convention in June and July in Nairobi and report on what has happened to women in this country. So I want to know whether this minister has in fact done the kind of homework that needs to be done, whether any of that was taken into account when this piece of legislation was drafted....

[5:45]

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's not the bill.

MS. BROWN: That is the bill. I'm talking about the legislation. I'm talking about the bill. I'm talking about the fact that this piece of legislation is in fact a giant step backwards, unless, as I said before, the minister has an amendment which he intends to introduce during committee stage or unless the minister plans to hoist this bill and rewrite it to reintroduce to the House or unless there is some kind of companion legislation.

Is there another piece of legislation that goes along with this piece of legislation which enshrines, by statute, an affirmative action plan, a commitment to closing that gap — not just the wage gap but the access?

I see the minister.... Who is that Minister of Wolves? What's his title again? Minister of Environment, is it?

MR. HANSON: Lands, leftover and....

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, he is giving me a signal to hurry up, but I'm not going to hurry because in fact once this bill is in place it's too difficult to have it changed. As the minister will agree, it's much simpler to change the bill before it's enshrined in law than it is to change the bill after. That's why I'm going to have to take as much time as is possible for me to take to try to change the mind of the minister.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: I have five minutes — Okay. That gives me enough time to reiterate my position on this. I want to use this time to bring to the minister's attention a book called Working Canadians: Readings in the Sociology of Work and Industry. This book talks about women's struggle for non-traditional jobs. The minister talks about treating everybody equally. I think he should read about some of the difficulties that women have to deal with. As one of the articles says, equal treatment does not equal equality. When you take two unequal situations and treat them the same, all you do is enshrine the inequality.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I am for affirmative action in the public service. That's what I'm talking about because that's what this bill does not permit to happen.

It says that where women face disadvantages, because of inequitable access to qualification because of sex-role stereotyping in the school system or employers refusing to hire or train them, you've got to compensate for those years of discrimination before you can ensure that equitable distribution of jobs happens. That's what affirmative action is all about. If the minister would read this article — and it's a long book, so I'm not asking him to read the whole book — and combine what he reads in this article with the report from the women's program of the Attorney-General ministry.... This is a little bit of homework which I'd like the minister to do: take the article, take the report, and then tie that in with the recommendations of the Abella report, which is the most up-to-date research and statistics done in Canada on the whole question of inequality or equality in employment. If the minister were to do those three things, Mr. Speaker, then I think that he would do one of two things: he would either rush in an amendment to this piece of legislation, or he would hoist this bill until it were possible for him to change it and to enshrine by [illegible] a coordinated program of affirmative action, so that the gap can be closed, so that his report to the national government, which it is going to incorporate in its report to the United Nations, would in fact be one that all British Columbians could be proud of and that this side of the House would be very happy to support.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the opposition is opposed to this bill because it is concerned about the political influence of appointments. The minister has said that such things have happened in the past, and did happen during the time the NDP was in office. There certainly have been some since then. But that's no reason for changing the legislation to make it so much easier that they would all be political appointments.

The minister told us that it is being done this way in New Brunswick and Quebec and in some states of the U.S.A. I've never heard anything about those jurisdictions that would make me think we should follow them in this kind of legislation. I'm not sure whether the minister's telling us that New Brunswick has always been that way, or whether it has recently changed to this. And if it did change to this kind of program, what did it change from? Is it really an improvement when it comes to convincing the public that it is a better system, better in the sense that it is not so open to political influence when it comes to appointing people?

We've had our experiences here in B.C. both a long time ago, before there was a Public Service Commission such as we have now, and perhaps more recently as well.

I can remember when road foremen were chosen on the basis of their politics. I can remember one road foreman in my own district who lost his job as a result of a change in government. The new man got the position. He wasn't able to do the work, so the old person was asked to come back and act in a lower capacity so that the work could be done. He was independent enough to turn it down, and it wasn't too long before he had to be appointed to his old position, in spite of the politics, because he was the one person who could really do the job.

[ Page 5027 ]

That kind of thing we're opening the door to it again by bringing in the kind of legislation that we are in this bill; at least that is our fear. Having introduced the subject, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker tabled the annual report of the Legislative Library for 1984.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.