[ Page 5029 ]

CONTENTS

Public Service Act (Bill 35). Second reading,

Mr. Stupich –– 5029

Mr. Davis –– 5030

Mr. Lauk –– 5031

Mr. Blencoe –– 5034

On the amendment.

Mr. MacWilliam –– 5036

Mr. Lockstead –– 5037

Mr. Rose –– 5038

Mr. D'Arcy –– 5038

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to introduce a group that is visiting in the gallery today: the president of the B.C. Motels, Resorts and Trailer Parks Association, Mr. Greg Higgins; Mr. Earl Hansen, their manager; and with them Mrs. Vera Leik, Mr. George Leslie, Mr. and Mrs. Charlie Thompson and Mr. Ken Walters. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT

(continued)

MR. STUPICH: Yesterday, in my opening remarks on this bill, I talked about the way pork-barrel politics used to work in this province some 50 years ago, and expressed the concern that the legislation before us now opens the door to that same kind of thing happening. I'm not saying it necessarily would in every case, but it certainly does open the door to the same sort of practice that used to be so prevalent in B.C. some 50 years ago — and prior to that, of course, and perhaps even after, to some extent.

I'd like to speak of another incident that occurred when the first Social Credit administration was in office; there were a lot of stories and rumours about the way politics interfered not only with appointments, but many other facets of business enterprise in the province.

A personal friend of mine, a contractor, in discussing a contract with one of the departments, was told that he would get more favourable consideration if he would make a contribution to a particular church or to the Social Credit education fund. There were enough similar stories going around at the time that there seems little doubt that a lot of this was going on, but in this instance I am positive it did happen. That contractor turned down the opportunity and subsequently went bankrupt, but at least he stood by his principles — although up to then he had been a Social Credit supporter.

During his argument, the Provincial Secretary threw in several names to suggest they were political appointments during the NDP administration. Mr. Speaker, of course there were such political appointments, and every one of those individuals — the Provincial Secretary named three, as I recall — knew he was there in that capacity, and every one of them was gone with the outgoing NDP administration. They didn't have to be asked to leave. They knew they had been appointed to do a particular job because of the nature of their expertise and the work that had to be done; they knew also that their career would end when the NDP administration ended.

[Interruption.]

MR. STUPICH: I thank the members of the House. That's the best applause I've ever had in this chamber, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your help.

Continuing with my argument, these people were appointed by the NDP. They were there to do a particular job because of their expertise, and they knew they were going out. As I say, the Provincial Secretary named three of them — not bad for a three-year administration — and no doubt there were others.

I can recall also that when the present Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) became Minister of Education he went through, I suppose, the college councils initially and got rid of all the government appointments whom he thought suspect in the slightest. He was so anxious to get rid of them that in one particular instance, in my own community, he asked and received..... He didn't ask; he terminated the appointment of one person who had been a Social Crediter — and may still be; I don't know. Certainly that person was very upset at the way she was treated by the then-Minister of Education. I challenged the minister about that during the course of estimate discussion, and he said that the NDP administration had done exactly the same thing. Now I don't know why that would make it right, Mr. Speaker; certainly in my mind it wouldn't. However, I then challenged that same minister to name one college council appointee whom the NDP administration had terminated for political reasons. That's six years ago, and I'm still waiting for the first name. I think our record was pretty clean when it came to political appointments and to political terminations. The first Social Credit administration was not nearly that clean, nor the second one.

Mr. Speaker, a case was related yesterday. I think it's worth just reminding the House of something that happened almost a year and a half ago, when Tony Tozer, Bennett's executive assistant in Kelowna and a relative by marriage, became the city's top provincial bureaucrat with the title of government agent. Then a second one, a new job, executive director in the office of the Premier, was created for Michael Bailey, Bennett's executive assistant here.

[10:15]

Mr. Speaker, it's a departure. These two people certainly know they're political appointments, and they would not expect to be around whenever this administration goes out of office, whichever one it is. But it's worse than that, because it's the first time in the history of the province, certainly in modern history, that a government agent was appointed in that manner. Previously they've always worked their way up through the civil service, and it's been a highly respected position. This kind of thing can do nothing more than bring disrespect to what is a very important office in communities throughout the province.

Bringing in this kind of legislation and suggesting that this kind of appointment may prevail throughout the civil service is doing a disservice to the civil service. It will demean them in the eyes of the public. My fear is that it will happen particularly under the administration that is in office now, in view of their reputation.

When one of my colleagues was speaking against this legislation, the minister interjected across the floor that these matters will be handled by directives. Well, there's really no protection in that. Directives are very easily issued, very easily cancelled and very easily changed. There might be a set of directives come down one day that would deal with a certain situation and cover all of the tracks, so that whatever has been done has apparently been done properly and in line with the directives, in line with the legislation; then the next day, to deal with a different situation, the directives could just

[ Page 5030 ]

as easily be changed so that they fit the new situation. So directives could be very temporary. The Provincial Secretary could at any time bring in new directives to deal with new situations. It's no protection for the public, which wants to be able to rely on an apolitical public service, to say that these directives are there to protect us against that kind of action on the part of the government.

The question of appeal. The minister has said that there is provision for appeal in the legislation. Who would dare appeal? Would a person applying for a job and feeling, or even having some evidence, that he was being overlooked for that particular job or for a particular promotion because of some political reason dare raise that? Would he dare come to the Public Service Commission in its capacity as an appeal group and say to them: "Because I had been a member of the Conservative Party I was overlooked for this promotion" — or because he'd been a member of the Liberal Party, the NDP or whatever? Would he use that kind of information before an appeal board, knowing that in so doing he would cancel forever any possibility he might have of getting employment or a promotion? That's no protection at all. What point is there in appealing if in the very process of appealing you know you are doing the worst possible thing for your future prospects? Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary did not do a very good job of telling us why this was necessary. He said only that it is done in other jurisdictions, and we suspect that in those jurisdictions the situation is much worse than it is in B.C., rather than being something we should be looking up to. He didn't tell us that it was going to work to improve the civil service in any way at all. He didn't even tell us that it was going to save any money, which might have been some excuse for having done it.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH Mr. Speaker, he's saying now that it will. I'm not sure that we can afford to save the kind of money it will save. I wonder how much....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: He's now interjecting that it will. I would invite him, when he speaks in second reading, to tell us just how much it is going to save and to justify, in the light of what we are going to gain, that that saving is worthwhile.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Forty jobs.

MR. STUPICH: Forty more people on unemployment insurance, forty more people eventually on welfare. Mr. Speaker, is that progress? Is that providing employment opportunities? Is that in line with a certain speech I listened to yesterday evening talking about the new B.C. and the new optimism in B.C. — to stand up in the Legislature and say: "We're going to bring in a new program, and the thrust of this program is to save 40 jobs. We don't care that it will destroy the reputation of the civil service in the province; we don't care about the bad effects. We're simply out to put 40 more people in the province on welfare"? If we needed any other reason to oppose this legislation, that in itself would be a good one. The opposition is opposed to this legislation.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks, essentially in support of this bill. There have been numerous claims made from the other side of the House that this will increase the opportunities for patronage. That won't be the case if the merit principle is firmly embodied in this bill, as I believe it should be. If it has any deficiency, the bill does not spell out as clearly as I would like the definition of merit. But I believe that merit should be the total measure by which employability is decided, people are retained and people are promoted in the public service. If one goes back far enough, the Crown was the master and the public servant was the servant or the employee. In order to overcome charges of patronage and opportunities for patronage, the Public Service Act was introduced and improved over the years. The Public Service Commission was embedded in that Act, its main job being both to hire and to oversee the advancement of public servants within the service.

A major change occurred in the early 1970s when public servants gained the right to bargain through the public service union. So an entirely new situation developed, where the public servants had power as a result of their banding together and, through their own spokesmen, improving their pay, their terms of employment and their seniority provisions. They had another kind of protection which was not present, clearly, in the very early days of the Crown and the public servant being master and servant or, indeed, in the intermediate phase when only a Public Service Commission existed to protected the public servant.

Now the problem faced by governments confronted with an increasingly strong public service has been one which has attracted the attention of governments everywhere. There have been commissions in the United States. There was, a few years ago, the D'Avignon commission at the federal level in Canada. There were other inquiries provincially. They all pointed to the need in government to have a single ministry responsible for personnel. Finance would be responsible for finances, accounting and the spending of money. Another ministry should be responsible for personnel management.

This bill makes the Provincial Secretary's ministry responsible for personnel. It allows for a hands-on arrangement between government — the employer — and the employees. It allows government more directly to hire, to transfer people from one job to another, to advance those who are most diligent and, indeed, to terminate service when the public interest indicates that should be so.

The role of the Public Service Commission is reduced. It no longer substantially governs the hiring, the advancement and even the termination of employees. Under this bill it simply becomes a court of appeal. The government, following the merit principle, will do the hiring, and decide on advancements and terminations. Those applying for jobs, those applying for transfers within the public service, those feeling they've been wronged in some way or passed over, can appeal to this Public Service Commission, but it is now only an appeal board. It is not the body that hires, promotes and fires. The government through its ministries, focused through the Provincial Secretary's ministry, will do that. But remember, the public servant has, on his or her side, the public service union. So that is a new factor.

What needs to be spelled out more clearly in this bill, and what I hope will be spelled out in future bills, is the merit principle. What determinants are considered when someone is hired, when one individual is chosen over another for an opening? I think the section that deals with merit should refer to, and indeed even give points for, certain qualities, abilities, requirements. In order to illustrate, I would indicate

[ Page 5031 ]

headings like this: education or skills should be worth, say, 10 percentage points; relevant experience, 20 percentage points; commitment to the job — the actual performance in past functions of the applicant — should be worth 20. Ability to communicate is a very important attribute of public servants, and should be worth 10 or 20 points. The disposition of the individual — whether they're positive or negative on the job — is important and should be worth, say, 10 points. Finally, for attitude towards the public, which I think should be a matter for rating of merit determination, let's say 10 points.

Those qualities should, I believe, be spelled out in the bill. What are the headings under which the public servant applying for a job, for a transfer, is rated? What are the weightings, and so on? Admittedly, this would be something also questioned — indeed altered — by negotiation with the public service union, but it would be spelled out for all to see; and appointments, other than those perhaps at the deputy minister level, would be made under the merit principle using specific criteria, This would reduce the claim of patronage, of political appointments and so on. The individual applying for a job could always refer to these rating criteria and take their appeal to the Public Service Commission if they felt they had been misjudged, put down unfairly or put down, let's say, for political or other reasons, and didn't gain an appointment.

The hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) spoke last night about affirmative action. Now what she was really saying was that the merit principle — at least merit under the headings I've defined, and I've endeavoured to talk about merit up to 100 percent.... She would not add political persuasion but, for instance, an age provision. Certainly she would add a sex provision. She would give a certain number of points, I assume, for women that men automatically would not get in the rating. She would give some consideration for race and certainly for native people, If a person was a full-blooded native Indian, for example, he or she would get a certain number of points as a bonus automatically in this rating process.

What about religion and citizenship? I gather that this bill really says that if you're not a Canadian citizen you need not apply, or you should only apply with some hope of employment if there isn't a single Canadian with any relevant qualifications applying for the job.

I want to dwell for a moment on the concept of affirmative action. Affirmative action is a slick term which is really a misnomer. I can't see how it's affirmative; basically it's negative. What it attempts to do is redress past wrongs, past injustices, and it gives those who presumably would not otherwise qualify in a fully competitive situation a job. It would give them a bonus so that they may gain their share of the jobs. If women make up 51 percent of the population, then under affirmative action 51 percent of the public service jobs have to be filled by women. If the native population of British Columbia is 5 percent, then 5 percent of all the jobs right up to and including the deputy minister's job in a ministry should be filled by native British Columbians, and so it goes, I'll call it a highly racist, sexist, defeatist approach to appointments.

I personally would not include any of those considerations, those bonus points, in the rating of applicants for a job, a transfer or an advancement –– I think it's an insult to women, to native people and to people of various racial extractions to be given, gratuitously, bonuses so that they will get the job, the assumption being that otherwise they wouldn't qualify. If the fundamentals of education, experience, commitment to the job, ability to communicate, disposition — whether they're positive or negative in their employment or in their attitude to the public.... If they are the principal determinates of qualification under the merit principle. then people, regardless of their sex. age, religion or ethnic background, will qualify or not qualify. Everyone can then stand back and feel that they merit the appointment, that they're worthy, that they've proven themselves.

[10:30]

Substantially, Mr. Speaker, that's my message. I do support the bill. I would point out to the opposition that other jurisdictions, including the United States, the federal government of Canada, New Brunswick and Quebec, have moved substantially in this direction. Commissions have concluded that government needs a personnel ministry as well as a finance ministry to coordinate personnel policy. They all believe that the merit principle is the one that should be employed, As far as I can determine, they've also ignored affirmative action as a way of slanting or compromising the merit principle. I support the bill, and I don't think that any claims or charges that this bill will afford greater opportunities for patronage stand up at all,

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for North Vancouver has pointed out some deficiencies in the definition of merit in the bill. That's one of the major reasons why I have a quarrel with it: it's difficult to define. It's difficult to establish the kind of merit system that the hon. member is referring to. I'm thinking of the federal immigration policy and applying points to the kind of person we want to come into Canada as a landed immigrant. Sometimes it works very well; other times it is so arbitrary it makes it difficult.... The net sort of excludes a lot of very good people we would be glad to have. Recognizing the problem is one thing. The importance of an independent civil service is the principle upon which this opposition takes issue with the bill.

Now I do not associate myself with the attack on governments of the day for political appointments at a certain level of service to the elected politician. As a matter of fact, I'd go further and say that in the British system there is altogether too much public outcry at the appointment of politically sympathetic personnel to sensitive positions by the government in power.

When we moved from the old system of appointing people at the pleasure of the monarch, whoever that might be at the time, to the new one of an independent, meritorious civil service, we gave the impression to those in Whitehall and in Ottawa and in Victoria that they were independent of the government of the day and served Her Majesty independently of Her Majesty's government. Sometimes you have the peculiarity of the civil service standing forthright, holding up the flag, the nation, in defence of the Crown against the government. It's a rather dangerous idea for the civil service to have. That's partly because there's a widely misunderstood proposition about an independent civil service.

They are independent simply because the civil service, at certain broad levels, should have the skills and capacities that are required to carry out the particular jobs in which they are employed. When you go down the line, you have to hire a grader of a highway. You can't hire someone who is the

[ Page 5032 ]

central committee secretary of the socialist party or the chairman of the Socred ladies' auxiliary. You've got to hire someone who can run a grader, and if you're wise, you want to hire a grader operator who can do the job fairly well and with some experience. It will save the taxpayer money, it will provide the government good service, and a happy, secure person in the civil service is more productive. But that's all it means. It doesn't mean that the civil service is some sort of fourth or fifth estate, protecting the Crown against the government.

Now we've seen actions like that across Canada, particularly in Ottawa, and quite often at Whitehall in London. There's nothing more galling to a government that's been chosen by the public to govern the country than to have its policies mined, undermined and exploded by the civil service. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why is that BBC television serial "Yes, Minister" so popular? It's because it's so darned true. A newly elected government cannot express its wishes and its policies with an intransigent civil service that believes that it and it alone is protecting Queen and country from whatever mindless, infantile ministers may have been appointed over it.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, it is a galling attitude to elected representatives. It is we who stand for election, it is we who place our policies before the people, and it is we who are defeated or elected by the public. The public renew or do not renew that job for us — every three to five years, let's say. Our public commission is the electorate. Our appeal is to the people, and it defeats the essential ingredient of democracy to have a civil service think of itself as a fifth estate, as a special yeomanry protecting the Crown from the excesses of the elected representatives, elected by the rabble, tarnishing the ermine of the Crown. It seems to me that civil servants have got carried away with that view of themselves.

The second point that I want to make is that political appointments to high levels of service to the government of the day are not only allowed, should not be attacked, but are essential.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'm not sure I do like this new spirit of cooperation. It's very disarming. But wait for the bottom line. He who is patient, etc.

I think it's essential that that be done. The people have spoken, and the will and policy of the government must be carried out. But the body of men and women that have the competence to carry out that policy on the administrative and skilled level must be independent from that political appointment. There is a level at which.... You can't have a royal commission do this, because a judge has absolutely no understanding of what I am talking about. But an all-party committee, perhaps, should decide what that line is. Above this line or across this line, it's purely a political appointment; it's accepted without question.

On the other side of that line is that army of men and women who are skilled and specifically trained to carry out the specific tasks in the civil service on behalf of the government and the people. Because that civil service — I don't call it public service, but "civil" service as opposed to the military side of the service to the country — is a special service.

It's very broad and in modern times it serves many aspects of the community,

Traditionally — I shouldn't say traditionally, but in the last 30 years — we've regarded the level of civil service pretty well up to deputy minister, sometimes including deputy minister but certainly up to deputy minister, as being non-political, if you like. But because of the confusion with the deputy minister level, and because of the confusion with a number of other grey areas with the public and the press, as reinforced by the imprecision of the politicians involved, we holus bolus attack jobs for the boys when Tony Tozer becomes a special assistant to the Premier, without realizing that that weakens our attack on Tony Tozer being appointed a government agent. I don't know how seriously people will take us when we attack the government for appointing Tony Tozer government agent, but it's damn serious indeed. It was a serious departure from tradition, at least as we have had it for the last 30 years — a very serious departure. It's not to be done. Otherwise we'll go back to the good old days.

It wasn't too long ago when the spoils system in this province was the name of the game; it was the rule of the day. In those days we had highways, the provincial police and other aspects of the civil service, and it was clear that no matter what level of employment you were at, it wasn't what you knew but who you knew that got you your job. It was widespread. It was openly conceded by the governments in the press for generations in this province. You became a provincial policeman because your uncle was a sergeant; you became a grader operator in the highways department because your father was the foreman — or your uncle or your father-in-law, or whoever. And that was the name of the game. That was the rule of the day, up until 1948-49, when they brought in the new Civil Service Act with a public commission.

A lot of people give credit to W.A.C. Bennett for cleaning up the civil service, but it was well underway before he took office. It was demanded by the public before the Social Credit formed a government in British Columbia. But I must say that Mr. Bennett did fulfil that mandate and carried it out at a certain level of civil service. There were breaches; there were charges and counter-charges of who got a job and who didn't at the various levels, but overall, compared to what it used to be prior to 1949, it was a tremendous improvement.

The Public Service Commission was appointed to protect public servants from being arbitrarily dismissed on a basis other than for just cause by the government of the day. As I say, unfortunately that may have been misinterpreted by some civil servants, but overall in British Columbia — at least, my feeling — it worked fairly well.

[10:45]

The opposition has contributed to the confusion by attacking political appointments at the ministerial level instead of confining their concentration of criticism on any political interference strictly at the civil service level. That's why, when we very strongly criticize an appointment, such as Tony Tozer as government agent, it was not widely reported in the press nor did it raise much concern with the public. When you look at the age groups now, you can see why. There are not many of you left who can remember the old days. There are not many people in British Columbia who can remember how important it is to have a non-political government agent in a community. It's very important. They've taken all of that for granted. This is ever the case, isn't it? We've achieved certain things in our democratic country over generations, and they

[ Page 5033 ]

are taken for granted. When some politicians stand up and shout that those are being eroded, the public says: "What's he talking about?"

It's my submission, Mr. Speaker, that this bill should not be supported on two grounds. First, as the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) stated, there must be a more detailed description of the merit system. I think that's very important. Second, I believe that the protection of the Public Service Commission for the rank-and-file civil servant is diminished and eroded by this bill. We must never let that happen or we'll return to the days of, let's say, 1945, when the Victoria Times reported on the new civil service act.

It's quite a revealing kind of report because of the way in which they talk about the transition from the old spoils system to the new system. First of all, the new civil service act got page 19, so it was not considered a great political issue of the day; and it was described — and this is typical of the press, always following and never leading.... Isn't that always the case? These great investigative reporters can never be found, of course.

March 28, 1945, the Victoria Times:

"One of the measures which has engaged the earnest consideration of the British Columbia Legislature" — and this about the fourth part of this particular legislative report — "... is that which puts the administration of the civil service on a new and" — supposedly — "more efficient basis. Its operative provisions ought to remove many of the glaring anomalies with which government employment has been plagued for years. Merit alone is to be the guiding factor. And if we have correctly interpreted the spirit and intent of an important stipulation in the act, purely political appointments to the service will be no more.

"Back in the general election of 1916, when the Liberals, led by the late Premier Brewster, swept the Bowser government out of office, patronage charges against the Conservatives enlivened practically every campaign meeting and provided a good deal of propaganda material. Federal and provincial contests here and elsewhere in Canada through the years have witnessed repetitions of the old familiar complaint. Perhaps it could scarcely be otherwise. 'To the victors belong the spoils' is a dictum which all political parties practise in office to a greater or lesser degree, the extent depending upon how such governments interpret their responsibilities to the public. Not that the civil services of either the Dominion or the provinces have necessarily suffered through the application of the age-old system. Many former party workers have laboured just as diligently and as conscientiously in jobs obtained through favour as those who have won their positions through demonstrated ability in the competitive field, without political assistance."

Can you imagine any newspaper writing that today? But that was the attitude of the day. The spoils system was taken for granted.

"It is nevertheless all to the good" — and this is actually a rather patronizing editorial, isn't it? — "that this province's coalition administration is leading the way in removing what some may consider the stigma attaching to a 'reward-for-party-service' job."

"What some may consider the stigma"! Can you imagine that today? Of course not. But this was the attitude of those days.

I think that to some extent W.A.C. Bennett was able to make it a real political issue in 1951 and '52, although the road to a meritorious rank-and-file civil service was underway prior to that. But he managed to make it a very successful campaign issue in those years, under the new party banner that he had started. As both members for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams and Mr. Macdonald) will remember, about five to six every night for almost twenty years the old Premier would stand in his place and talk about that. He would say: "In 1952, when I came into government, this province was ravaged by patronage. Nobody with merit could get a job in the civil service. The old coalition did all the hiring of brothers and sisters and aunts and uncles. There was nepotism, The place was corrupt; there was graft," etc. etc. Do you remember those speeches, the flying-fish speech?

AN HON. MEMBER: He talked out the clock.

MR. LAUK: Yes, he did, just as the member for Vancouver East was about to get up and make his maiden speech. Twenty years in the House, and he wasn't able to make his maiden speech. Every time he was ready to stand in his place, the Premier would get up and give the flying-fish speech. I think that should go down in history.

Are we returning to the old days of the spoils system because we have new generations of British Columbians who have forgotten the old days? Believe me, there could be nothing more humiliating, infuriating and mortifying than to know that you have the skills necessary for a job but that somebody with political pull got it over you.

Because the rank-and-file civil service of British Columbia reaches into all aspects of our community life, going back to the spoils system would not be like the old spoils system. It would be more ingrained and more corrupt because of the expansion of the civil service in the last 30 years and the way in which it touches so many more aspects of our life than it did in 1950-52. It is a very dangerous thing to do, because it works both ways. It is dangerous, it is foolhardy, and it's not good politics. I say that, warning the Provincial Secretary and the government that this bill is dangerous. I don't think it's well thought out; I'm sure it hasn't been. If there's a political motive behind it it is puerile and dangerous. It is not good understanding of responsibility certainly, but it will backlash on this government in such a way that they will ever have an issue backlash on them.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour mentioned hat we don't need a Public Service Commission because we've got the BCGEU. I think that's substantially what the member said: that the union takes the place of the Public Service Commission to some extent with respect to protection. I suppose he's talking about the grievance procedure in be collective agreement — is he? Is there a grievance procedure in here someplace? Perhaps he's talking about their ability to shut down the ferry service if somebody has been improperly promoted.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Interjection.

[ Page 5034 ]

MR. LAUK: Well, they may have. I don't see any grievance procedures here. What protection does a civil servant have through the union, other than through that collective bargaining process whenever the agreement expires? I've seen all kinds of grievance procedures. Where is the arbitration? Is that a final step in grievance procedures? Are there arbitration procedures in there?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read the act.

MR. LAUK: I did.

I think the member for North Vancouver–Seymour failed to realize that an essential ingredient to the ordinary rank-and-file civil service is a grievance procedure, culminating ultimately in some form of independent arbitration. If it's not available, there's no protection under a collective bargaining situation — absolutely none. The last protection for the rank-and-file civil servant was this Public Service Commission You can't stand up and say, gee, it's difficult to get rid of some deadwood or somebody I don't like or somebody in the Environment ministry who keeps complaining about the ungulates. They're a nuisance. What do you do? You've got to go before the Public Service Commission. You've got to establish just cause. Well, there's an indirect way: we can promote everybody up around him; we can red-circle him; we can do a number of things. This bill makes it a lot easier to do that. They don't have that kind of protection now. I'm not saying that the political appointments at a certain level need that protection; they're at the pleasure of the government for as long as the government is in office. But the rank-and-file civil servant needs that protection because the public needs that protection. We need to have confidence in our civil service — not that somebody's nephew is now in charge of the pollution control branch. We want somebody we know, with skills and knowledge, who worked his or her way into that position.

I rather thought that the paternalistic views of the member for North Vancouver–-Seymour.... I apologize if I'm overly using the member for a foil for my speech, but it's very convenient at this moment.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that his comments were paternalistic. He argues that affirmative action is not the merit system. Everybody is created equal; I hear that at the Vancouver Club occasionally when I'm there delivering papers. "We're all equal here, aren't we? Another scotch, Jeeves. We all have the same opportunities to get ahead, no matter where you're born."

Isn't it strange that three-quarters of the chairmen of boards of the private companies in British Columbia were graduates of St. George's School? Does that strike you as being rather strange'? And about 10 percent are from Vancouver College and the rest are from Magee. Jimmy Pattison, I think, went to.... Well, we won't....

MR. HANSON: There was a personnel officer from Gladstone once,

[11:00]

MR. LAUK: There was?

Let's talk seriously about affirmative action. Affirmative action does work, and I'm going to prove it to you right now. We have affirmative action in the justice system of Canada, because 48 percent of the prison population are native Indians, and they represent only 4 percent of the population of Canada. That's what I call affirmative action.

It's very easy in the comfortable seats of this Legislature, and in the Vancouver Club in your three-piece suits and your silk ties and your Rhodes scholarships — there's only one over there now — to say that there's no need for affirmative action. But sometimes you have to allow certain groups of people to go through red lights to even things up. That's what affirmative action is. It's not putting down someone else who has some advantages; it's evening things up. If you believe in an egalitarian democratic system — not that everybody's equal, but that everybody should have equal opportunity — then you have to occasionally create situations, not as a widespread policy, that will allow people to go through red lights. In other words, boost somebody up, because it works the other way.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what they're doing, sir.

MR. LAUK: Yes, thank you, that was my next point. This whole bill is affirmative action. It's affirmative action for those sympathetic with the Socred party, That's the best affirmative action program you can see.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who else would hire those guys?

MR. LAUK: I think there are some Social Crediters who are very good in their jobs: Bernie Smith, the whistler. But I see this bill as being affirmative action in that way. Everybody's got advantages and disadvantages, and I appreciate the member for North Vancouver–Seymour raising the issue of setting out the merit system clearly. That's why I'm puzzled about why he's supporting this bill. You can drive a coach-and-six through a number of areas here that are of concern to you, as the member has indicated in his speech. Why he considers it, therefore, a bill worth support in second reading is puzzling me. But I never went to Oxford; I don't know.

We are returning, Mr. Speaker, to a time when it's not what you know but who you know, and that's sad. The backlash on this government will be something that they will not survive. Come what may, they will not survive. The reaction to this bill will not initially be widespread in the public, but it's poisonous, it's pernicious and it will divide the social fabric of British Columbia society. I will oppose this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I rise, like my colleagues, to oppose this particular piece of legislation. There are a number of reasons. I have taken the opportunity to go through the legislation to see if there is anything that particularly recommends this bill to myself and to those I have to represent in Victoria. Obviously Victoria is very concerned about this piece of legislation.

Victoria, as we all know, has a high proportion of public servants who will be dramatically affected by this legislation. I find virtually nothing that recommends this bill to the Legislature or to the people of this province. What I see is really what I think can be called the family compact bill. That goes back to the days when if your family was in a certain position, or, as the second member for Vancouver Centre indicated, you went to a certain school or had the right tie, or if your face fitted into the modus operandi of the current

[ Page 5035 ]

government, you might be able to seek a position in the public service.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think the people of British Columbia, or the people of Canada, support the kinds of moves that have been happening in the public service. Canadians were angered, for example, by what was happening in Ottawa just before the last election, with the blatant patronage appointments by the former Prime Minister. I think Canadians expressed their view that the public service and those who serve the public in such a fashion should not be hired or put in place because they have friends in high office.

This bill will allow the minister to ensure in various ways that those who are friends of the government, do the right things and carry the right cards are going to be able to seek employment forget promotion within the public service. It is a family compact bill. It has incredible potential for abuse in terms of patronage, and I think the people of British Columbia believe that their public service should be totally independent from the political arm. They believe the public service and those who work in it should be able to operate and do their jobs without worrying which minister or deputy minister, or which group of representatives of the minister, is looking over their shoulder — not necessarily just to see that they are doing their job properly, but to make sure they are saying or doing the right things, or meeting or having lunch with the right people.

Well, Mr. Minister, I think the people of British Columbia, when they know the details — and they will know the details of this bill — will not and cannot support it. We have for years now accepted the basic fundamental principle that the public service has to be independent. There has to be real fair play. It must be non-political. Otherwise those in that service will constantly be worried about which government or which member of that government is looking over their shoulder.

I'll give you an example, Mr. Speaker. In this community I have many personal friends who work in the public service. I can assure you that in the last few days, when this bill became known, many of them expressed deep concern about who was going to be watching them, or what kinds of chances they'll have for promotion. Is it going to be known now that those people happen to be friends with a member of the opposition, or someone who's high up in a particular political party; is it going to be reported back to the minister or those who he hires?

It is going to create fear within the public service. Public servants are not going to be able to do their jobs properly, Mr. Speaker. It undermines the basic tenets and principles of public service that have been accepted in this country for years and years. The public service must be independent. It must be free from political control, and we must ensure that the patronage machine or the family compact organization that's being set in place in this bill does not take place in British Columbia.

We've already had some, examples of this kind of thing by this government. I refer to the residential tenancy branch, where the arbitrator is no longer the rentalsman, hired by the Public Service Commission and protected from political interference. But those arbitrators in the minister's new residential tenancy branch are directly hired by the minister himself. That's direct political interference into something as fundamental as deciding a rental dispute. Socred appointments. Government friends making decisions about people's homes and their rental accommodation. Totally biased, totally unfair. No objectivity in those hirings. And it's that kind of appointment that will become the norm; every single appointment in the next few years, if this bill is not turned down or changed, will be subjected to that kind of hiring that we saw in the residential tenancy branch. Blatantly Socred government friends were hired to do that job. And the minister hasn't denied it. He said: "Sure, I hired them. We hired them." Mr. Minister, we put in a rentalsman staff that had nothing to do with politics. We are currently having to deal with the appointments in the residential branch that I referred to, and I hope that in time the minister will take a look at those kind of appointments.

The point I make, Mr. Speaker, is that the kind of appointment we have seen in that minister's office, the residential tenancy branch, will be the norm. About a year ago, college boards — not elected anymore. Appointed college boards, all Socreds. I don't think the people of British Columbia wish to set various levels of government or public service stacked with a particular philosophical view or philosophical bent. When you put in place legislation that is going to allow the minister to issue directives regarding recruitment, selection and appointment of staff, training, development, health and safety of employees; general administration of all labour safety of employees, relations matters of the public service; terms and condition of employment; rates of compensation, etc., you are radically changing the whole nature of the public service.

For years I was involved at the municipal level. We had very clear rules, some of them laid out in the Municipal Act. For instance, you couldn't run for office in a municipal election if you did business with that municipality. It's seen as a direct conflict of interest. You couldn't run for office if you were an employee of that municipality. In every municipality there is a personnel department that is separate from the mayor and the aldermen. The rules are clearly laid out, and it's understood by municipalities that there has to be hiring separate from the political arm. What's going to happen with this particular piece of legislation, as would happen in municipalities if they followed this government's example, is that people having talents and resources and expertise useful to the government, but who perhaps in private life have different views on certain things and are free in a democracy to express those views, would not go to work for that government. That is absolutely critical, Mr. Speaker,

In a real democracy — and I hope to God we still are in British Columbia — those who apply for jobs or promotions shouldn't have to worry about what happens in their own private life, or about the views they express in their private life. But now we're going to have Big Brother in the form of this provincial government pervading virtually every aspect of the public service. We clearly can't support that. The former Premier of this province, the father of the current Premier. stated categorically that he couldn't and wouldn't support this kind of invasion. Clean up the patronage. Clean up the master-servant relationship, Clean up the potential corruption — and there is potential here for corruption, no question about it. When you have direct political involvement with those who work in the public service, in time you are going to be asking for all sorts of problems within that system.

[11:15]

Mr. Speaker, I fully believe that British Columbians support an independent public Service. They don't support the kind of interference that we've already seen by the Minister of

[ Page 5036 ]

Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). I am convinced they don't support this piece of legislation. There are concerns with the public service and there is always room for improvement. But this piece of legislation takes us back — way back — to the deep, dark ages in terms of the public service. Certainly we urge this government to think through what they're doing, to give it a second thought and a rethink. I don't think it's bad when a government rethinks its position, and I've said that a number of times on controversial legislation in this House. They did rethink certain things in the last few sessions, and I commend them for that. I wish they would rethink this one.

Victoria, to bring in a personal note, has thousands of public servants who are loyal and dedicated. They work for this government and like their jobs; they have skills. They should not be seen as something always to take on or as a problem, but should be seen as partners in trying to get this province going again. Once again, this kind of legislation undermines their morale and their position in the community. Now, when they talk to their friends, they will have to say: "Well, there's no longer a Public Service Commission" — in terms of the very things I just outlined a minute ago. "It all depends on whether I fit."

Mr. Speaker, think of the potential abuse in this piece of legislation. It is going back, and we cannot support it. For those reasons, on behalf of the opposition, I move the following motion: that the bill be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time on this day six months hence.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the amendment to Bill 35 is a hoist motion. It is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I rise in support of the motion for hoist. I would like to outline the reasons for my support of that motion.

The legislation in front of us today is a dangerous piece of legislation for many reasons, which I will attempt to point out. It usurps the power of the independent commission, and it represents a further centralization of authority and the power of decision-making back to the government in power. The draconian changes in the process of hiring and the transferring of employees opens a direct pipeline for political patronage appointments. It amounts to a decision by this government to take over the direct hiring role of the Public Service Commission; in essence, the Public Service Commission becomes a political extension of Social Credit partisanship.

I would like to outline the particulars of the bill which are in contention and work my way through the bill in that process. To begin, section 2 allows the minister responsible to issue directives dealing with personnel, yet it does not define exactly what those directives are. It does not state the purpose of the directives clearly. Section 5, which replaces section 20.... I was just getting some clarification from my honourable colleague.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think I sense what is going on. For the member's benefit — and I appreciate that you're new in this House — second reading is normally a general principle debate. When we're in committee, we have a chance to get into the specific details of a section.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you for the clarification. It changes the tenor of my topic.

There doesn't seem to be any requirement in the consideration of the factors determining merit. Essentially this has allowed different employment standards between ministries. The danger here is that it opens a direct pipeline to what I would consider to be a patronage appointment,

I want to refer you for a moment to an order-in-council signed on January 30, appointing the unsuccessful Social Credit candidate in the North Okanagan by-election as a member of the board of the British Columbia Assessment Authority. To the extent of my knowledge of the situation, I am concerned that that member who has just been appointed does not in fact have the qualifications necessary to make professional judgement in that capacity. I believe that this bill extends the authority for such appointments, and in that respect is dangerous.

The bill nullifies certain sections in collective agreements. It calls for consultation, and yet does not define the process of negotiation.

One of the other problems is that the bill limits who can apply for a posted vacancy. The powers to limit the applications to workers, for example, in particular occupational groups, positional levels, or even geographic considerations, can in effect narrow down the competition for that vacancy so that a minister — the minister from Prince George — could easily define limits for qualification that would ensure that a political friend was the only one to qualify. There's certainly a danger there. It also allows specific ministries to restrict the job vacancies to workers within that ministry.

One of the other areas of concern is that the bill initiates a probationary period of six months for any new position, irrespective of the previous seniority of that worker. A person, for example, with 10, 15 or 20 years' experience, if qualifying for a new position, would be put on probation. In essence, it could be used to very slyly get rid of "troublemakers." But one of the problems I see in that is that any person who has garnered seniority in a particular position may be inhibited from applying for a new position because he has to go back on this probationary period. So I think it does not enhance movement within the service.

As to the establishment of the mandate of the commission, the status of that commission is unclear in the present bill. Because its status is unclear, it raises the question of how it can possibly be an independent commission. In addition, it doesn't provide the chair of that commission with sufficient direction, nor does it provide him with an adequate status. It doesn't outline, in essence, the duties of the commission. Its only apparent responsibility will be to review the selection decisions. In essence, it is being emasculated; it has lost its power.

In regard to the provision of appeals, there are some questions that are left hanging. With respect to giving authority to the commission to establish the cost of appeals, for example, if a person in Prince George wants to appeal a decision on the job vacancy application, and the appeal process is in Vancouver, the question is: who has to pay for the cost of that appeal? That hasn't been outlined or clarified. In essence, it may deny equal access to the process of appeal.

One of the other concerns about the bill is that it doesn't mention retirement allowances for employees under the provision for mandatory retirement at 65. This may not affect union employees, who are governed under the collective

[ Page 5037 ]

agreement, but it will affect those other workers, and it has neglected to outline and clarify that point.

What is also of concern, Mr. Speaker, are not those points just outlined that have been defined in the act, but rather a number of points in the old act that are not in this bill. The bill, by deleting a number of sections, in essence has eliminated a layer of protection for those non-union employees, The duties of the commission, as I mentioned before, have not been spelled out. Access to information and notification of job vacancies has been jeopardized. The ministries are no longer responsible or obliged to provide adequate information or give notification of job vacancies. How can it be an open access if that provision is not clearly spelled out?

The old act provided for employees, if the job or the employee was termed redundant, to be essentially placed on a priority list for placement; that has been removed, and there is no provision for it. The restriction of the reduction of salary by reclassification has been eliminated. If a person is moved from one job to another, be may now be liable to have a salary rollback.

The provision for a temporary appointment, which was previously empowered to the commission, has been eliminated. There is no longer a provision for the commission to deal with and regulate the use of examinations. There is no longer a provision for filling vacancies by reward of promotion; that has been eliminated. There is no longer the provision dealing with educational training, nor the outlining of the amount and entitlement of the receipt for retirement allowances or death benefits. Those provisions have also been eliminated.

In summary, the points that I've outlined — the points that have been redefined or deleted in the new act with respect to the old act — are of grave concern. Because of those points I stand in support of the motion to hoist. I would like to review the fact that the bill before us is instituting draconian changes in the hiring and transfer of employees: a centralization of the process of decision-making, where the powers of the previous commission have been all but emasculated. It has lost its authority. It is apparent, through this bill, that the government wants to seek a direct-hiring role in the public service, which has the dangerous overtones of becoming a political extension of party politics. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I support the motion to hoist.

[11:30]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I intend to be very brief in support of the amendment to hoist; I don't want to reiterate all the arguments that we've heard here over the last seven or eight hours in two days of debate.

I think one of the prime reasons this bill should be hoisted is the very vagueness of the bill itself. I have gone through the bill, section by section, and I have no intention of doing that in this particular speech; I know that these issues will be raised during committee stage of the bill. But as you go through the bill, you come across areas.... I just came across a section of the act here: retirement allowances for employees that are due for retirement, Nowhere in this bill does it mention how a certain class of employee within the government service will receive their retirement allowances, if any. I know that has to be of grave concern to some of the employees presently working for the government, if they fall into a certain category. Nowhere in the bill does the act spell out how these people are to be dealt with.

The independence of the commission is very unclear. I know that topic has been raised in this debate time and time again.

I am on my feet to tell you that it is a grave concern to me. I don't see how that commission or proposed commission that this bill will be setting up and putting in place can actually act in an independent capacity. I know that the minister, when he responds when closing the debate, will presumably at least give us his version of how he thinks this particular aspect of the bill is going to operate.

But it is certainly not clear in the bill, and I think that's another excellent reason for having this bill hoisted at the present time, for having the minister take the bill back to legislative counsel and the people he works with in his ministry. Hopefully there would be some consultation with the public employees, and certainly I believe that there should be in-depth consultation with the unions involved.

How can you bring in a bill like this? Now maybe the minister has met with the representatives of the union. The minister nods his head, so I'm presuming that that means that he has had some consultation. But I would be very surprised, Mr. Speaker, if the unions involved agreed with all the aspects of this bill before us.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I think it's a badly drafted bill. I think the purpose of this bill is not, in fact, as we've been told. But as one of my colleagues stated so clearly yesterday, this bill leaves open the possibility of patronage in government, in my view. Now I'm not saying that this is what the government intends to do, because we know this government hires people from all political parties and from all walks of life, and just because they support the Social Credit Party — and some people still do support the Social Credit Party and contribute to their campaign funds — these people are not necessarily going to be on top of the list. They'll be close, but not necessarily on top of the list. It is a major concern of mine.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) says "Nonsense." It's not nonsense.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, maybe it was your other colleague over there. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) then, because there's only two of you over there. It had to be one of you.

So I do have major concerns. I didn't get on my feet to go through this whole speech, which will be better discussed at committee stage, but I wanted to be on record as supporting the hoist and opposing this bill. I think the minister has an obligation to take this bill back to his office and to legislative counsel, to consult with the people directly affected by the implications of this vague piece of legislation and come back to this House with a new bill. In fact, in the new spirit of cooperation it might not hurt the minister to discuss the matter with our critic or our leader — have him in on the meeting. Why not? We might come up with a much better bill.

[ Page 5038 ]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, like the previous speaker, I don't expect to speak at any tedious length about this piece of legislation. I think it has been well documented that there are severe concerns about it and these concerns are being expressed, I think eloquently, by a number of members on our side. I think the defence of these initiatives has been terrifically weak — especially the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), when he was attacking affirmative action on the grounds that it was an admission that someone who was black or of non-white origin was somehow being given some sort of demeaning gift by certain kinds of quotas. I know that down in the States it was absolutely necessary to have quotas to make sure that minorities such as blacks and Chicanos got into the medical schools, because the WASPs traditionally, as they have in this country, have dominated the senior appointments, not only in business but also labour and the educational institutions. I don't think there's any question that it continues to happen.

There was a celebrated book about 20 or 30 years ago, by a Mr. Porter who was once at Carleton University, that analyzed the structure of Canadian society and found it was a mosaic, but also a ladder. In other words, people from certain kinds of backgrounds had a much better chance of achieving success than did those who belonged to minority groups. He called it a "vertical mosaic." The opportunities in society went from white and Protestant to black and, I suppose, Jewish at the bottom — certainly non-Christian. This was well documented. He said, for instance, that over half the corporate directors in Canada had gone to one prep school called Upper Canada College. That's how we have traditionally selected our leaders in the various kinds of ventures in this country.

To scrap all the protections that were once available under this legislation is, I think, certainly a backward step. Even if it doesn't lead to the kind of things we used to experience — called blatant and outright patronage — I think it's certainly going to lead to a suspicion of that.

One of my first memories of politics, Mr. Speaker, was in the thirties. Most people consider it a rather disgusting and dirty business. I don't know that that's changed much, except that I don't feel that way. I think it's among the most noble of endeavours — the opportunity to serve — and I dispute that idea, but I can't help the image out there. Well, I can help the image out there, but I don't know if I do; but that's my own problem.

I'd like to say this much about it. One of my first memories of politics was listening to my mother say something to my father about a neighbour. We lived in Mission; you're very familiar with that little town, Mr Speaker, because you have the honour at the moment to represent it, as I did in the federal House at one time. I think it was in 1933 or 1934. I don't quite remember the year and I haven't taken the trouble to look it up because I wasn't intending to speak at this moment on this subject. My mother said: "I'm really pleased that the Liberals won the election" — I don't know what year that was — "so Mr. X won't lose his job." Now Mr. X happened to be passing the house at that time and we were looking out the window. Mr. X ran the grader. Mr. X was heading to what was then known as the government barn, because at that time we were just moving away from horse drawn graders to graders powered by machinery. What did she really mean by that? She meant that the jobs in the public service, right down to the guy who drove the grader, were determined politically. Wasn't it wonderful that since Mr. X was a Liberal, the Liberals won and he wouldn't be out of work — in the Dirty Thirties.

If that's the kind of thing that this bill anticipates.... If this is going to take the protection of the objectivity of the Public Service Commission and put it in the hands of people who are political in nature, then naturally there's going to be a suspicion, and also a tendency to hire like-minded people. I don't think that's fair. It has nothing to do with merit, nothing to do with the kinds of things that would protect us against discrimination so that minorities may have an opportunity to apply and get jobs and get that kind of recognition. A study done just a little while ago — I think it was at UBC — found that in job applications, minorities were turned down two to one. They also found that it was much more difficult for those people to even get a residence if they were attempting to rent.

Mr. Speaker, if there's a suggestion of that, I think it's pernicious.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Yes, pernicious. The suggestion is pernicious; the possibility of favouritism toward one political group or another is a very dangerous thing — I don't say it's not understandable. If we're dealing with the people we're hiring, I think it's a natural thing to look to those people you know best and whom you think are going to be reliable. But reliability is not the same thing as competence. I think that in the civil and the public service we should be dealing with people who are going to do their jobs as competently as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding in which there's a large provincial institution. There are thousands of people employed at that institution. Traditionally they have been employed by taking examinations or applications to be reviewed by the Public Service Commission. I would think that the people I represent will not be comforted by the fact that this sort of thing is going to change. This is a watershed; it's a return; it's a reactionary reversal, if you like, to something that was found wanting 20 and 30 years ago and was blatant in certain areas, as it is today in certain other areas of Canada, notably the Maritimes. We want to get rid of that kind of stuff.

So to suggest that we should do it because New Brunswick has done it, I don't find particularly comforting. But I can't support the bill because I believe that the Mr. Xs that my mother spoke about almost 50 years ago — 45 years ago — are in jeopardy now. If to be hired and to continue to have employment and get promotion is not dependent on merit but dependent possibly on the whims of the hiring officer or the politician, regardless of which party, it is a dangerous thing, and it is a trap into which we shouldn't fall.

[11:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before we proceed, I would just remind all hon. members that we are speaking to an amendment here — a hoist motion with respect to why second reading should be put off for six months.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, that was a well-timed reminder, I might say.

I have feelings as to why this bill should be reconsidered. It is not, as other speakers have said before me, that this bill doesn't contain some good intents. The problem in why this bill should be reconsidered by the minister and his executive council is the fact that in addressing the changes that I believe

[ Page 5039 ]

we all agree need to be made, the bill, unfortunately, is simply not credible. The bill seeks, as I read it, to establish essentially a corporate hiring structure within the civil service. In some ways there's nothing wrong with that. The traditional ways of establishing a credible hiring system for a civil service have served well, and there are some ways in which the process needs to be modernized and made more efficient. Maybe there should be more attention to merit, productivity and flexibility through some of the changes and some of the motivations that the minister has spoken of.

The problem is: there is no credibility around the definition of "merit" in this bill. Merit seems to be whatever any given minister decides it's going to be. It could refer to who knew who in some sort of old-boys or old-girls network, who knew who out of their MBA grad class, who was familiar with who in the federal civil service, what church people went to, or maybe the fact that they didn't go to church — we might have a bunch of godless Socreds in the civil service. So as long as it is totally discretionary as to what merit is, and what the process of hiring is, there is absolutely no check or balance, no question as to how any outside observer — or even an observer from inside this chamber — is going to test the relative merit of the people who are hired and brought into certain positions of responsibility, for perhaps millions or hundreds of millions of dollars, within the civil service of British Columbia.

The same system that the minister, through this bill — and this is why I want him to reconsider it.... Traditionally, the same system has been in effect within the Crown corporations of this province. There are rare occasions where that has given exceptionally good management. I think it's fair to say that, in relative terms, we have good management within the B.C. ferry system today. We haven't always had it, but we do today.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

But the approach that the minister is wanting to apply has also given us the kind of management we've had in British Columbia Hydro for the last nine years, which has given us an $8 billion to $9 billion debt. It gave us projects that in the short run, and maybe in the long run, cannot produce a single penny of revenue, such as the Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line and the Revelstoke dam. They made those kinds of corporate decisions with government support and approval. One of the reasons for that is that the government had total discretion and authority in deciding who was meritorious to head up those corporate management teams.

We had this kind of government discretion — or lack of discretion — in appointing management to corporations such as B.C. Development Corporation, which made, and continues to make, a number of good decisions, but has also made some horrendous ones — which the government has admitted to — such as funding a money-losing jetfoil. The jetfoil should have been funded, by the government's own philosophy — and certainly by our philosophy — by the private sector. It made decisions on funding, converting night boats into day boats and day boats into night boats, which lost money. Any fool could see it was going to lose money. Those were some of the management decisions made by people appointed by the present government without any review.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe the minister wants — I hope the minister does not want — that kind of management appointment decision-making process to also apply to the civil service. We don't want that on this side of the House. The people of B.C. don't want that. That people of B.C. deserve better.

Everyone knows that the provincial budget is a multibillion-dollar business matter each and every year. We must have absolute competency in the people who administer those funds. There must be some credible method of measuring the competency of the people whom the government appoints into that field.

Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia throughout the last number of years there have been a whole lot of other decisions which quite frankly, in terms of management, leave something to be desired. Within the British Columbia Systems Corporation and the British Columbia Buildings Corporation all decisions of appointments and management teams are made unilaterally by government. One could even question, with the benefit of hindsight, many of the corporate decisions made by B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, especially when you consider that originally the government had total control of the decision-making process — not now, but originally the pattern was set by government.

Mr. Speaker, over the last few years the government has talked about productivity in the public service, not just the provincial public service but at the municipal, school board and hospital level. What measuring stick does the government intend to use regarding productivity in the senior levels of the civil service? Are government corporations to be compared by some rational measuring process with private sector corporations? I personally wouldn't mind that; I think that's a good idea. I see no reason why government corporations or the civil service should in any way make decisions on a less than businesslike basis.

The point is that the government entities and agencies that I'm speaking of — B.C. Rail is another example — are only at best indirectly involved in a competitive way with any other corporation. There needs to be some measure of scrutiny. It's quite possible that if there had been some further measure of scrutiny of corporate decision-making and corporate management quality, we might not have had some of those massively damaging business and political decisions involving Crown corporations during the term of the present Social Credit government. It's easy to be political and speak retroactively about those decisions. The fact is that people on this side of the House did speak against them at the time. Those decisions were made, and B.C. business and the B.C. taxpayer are now paying for those decisions.

I do not want the kind of Crown corporation management team within the civil service that we have seen under this present government. As I said in my opening remarks, there are a few notable exceptions. I think I would point to the present management of B.C. Ferries as one of those exceptions. But in the main the government has chosen people to appoint to its Crown corporate boards who have made some extremely questionable business decisions, even taken in the context of the times in which those decisions were made, which were much better economically than what we unfortunately have to endure in the spring of 1985.

That's why I would like the minister to take this bill back from the order paper, withdraw it for six months and come back with another bill. We all agree that a bill is needed, a bill is desirable, but a bill which is going to have credibility in

[ Page 5040 ]

terms of how the public sees the government's decision making process and its ability to appoint competent people to the civil service, when that civil service is responsible for the administration of billions of dollars annually.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would move adjournment until the next sitting of the House, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.