1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2433 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Timetable for legislation. Mr. Howard –– 2433

Korean travel industry. Mr. Strachan –– 2434

Meeting on Bill 9. Mr. Blencoe –– 2434

Pipeline subsidies. Mr. Lockstead –– 2434

B.C. Place. Mr. Lauk –– 2434

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

Introduction and referral to committee of the House –– 2436

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

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2437

Mr. Gabelmann –– 2440

Mr. Skelly –– 2445

Ms. Sanford –– 2448

Mrs. Wallace –– 2452

Mr. Blencoe –– 2456

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1983

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce

two members of my constituency who are in your gallery this afternoon,

Mr. Robert Vaughan and William Webster. I would ask the House to

welcome them please.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries this afternoon I

have visiting with us a good friend and fellow constituent. He also

happens to be the parks and recreation director for the district of

Coquitlam, as well as the head of the search and rescue division for

the northeast sector. I'd ask the House to join me in making welcome

Mr. Don Cunnings.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I have two guests in the gallery

today: Rosemary Imlah and Fred Beruschi from the city of Revelstoke.

I'd particularly like the House to note that Rosemary was the chairman

of the very successful Winter Games held in the city of Revelstoke

earlier this year. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, we also have in the gallery

today a West Vancouver resident. I would like to welcome, on behalf of

the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), Mrs. Mae Ross.

Oral Questions

TIMETABLE FOR LEGISLATION

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, particularly in light of the events that

have led up to the progress that Bill 9 has made so far. Has the

minister recently received or participated in the development of any

plan establishing or urging the establishment of a specific timetable

for the passage of legislation and other business currently before the

House?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to ask the Minister of Education whether

he has recently received or participated in the development of any plan

establishing or urging the establishment of a specific timetable for

the passage of legislation and other business currently before the

House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, it would appear to

the Chair that the member is at this time canvassing a matter partially

raised as a matter of privilege yesterday, and it is an integral part

of the question that was raised yesterday. One moment, please.

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

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I really don't know the

purpose or intent of the member's question. Am I involved in any

particular

schedule of some kind with respect to the passing of Bill 9?

It's an unequivocal no. I really do not know what you're referring to.

I would ask him to maybe expand for my benefit,

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: You had your chance.

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

MR. HOWARD: All right. If you're that obtuse about things, I

will. I asked the minister if he recently received or participated in

the development of any plan establishing or urging establishment of a

specific timetable for the passage of legislation and other business

currently before the House.

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

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications whether he has recently

received or participated in the development of any plan establishing or

urging establishment of a specific timetable for the passage of

legislation and other business currently before the House.

[2:15]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, the

business of the House is determined by orders of the day. As the member

well knows, every individual in this House participates in the business

according to orders of the day, so I would think that the member's

question is preposterous.

MR. HOWARD: Perhaps the minister didn't hear the question.

I'll read it carefully. Ask him to pay attention. Has the minister

recently received or participated in the development — I am asking him,

not what other members might do — of any plan establishing or urging

establishment of a specific timetable for the passage of legislation

and other business currently before the House? That was the question.

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

MR. HOWARD: That's the answer. I wonder if I could ask the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications a question apropos

his answer about the Orders of the Day .

Would he consider it an offence then if someone went outside the

concept of the orders of the day to establish such a timetable?

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

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

[ Page 2434 ]

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

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

MR. HOWARD: The important thing, Mr. Minister, is the answer.

Has the minister recently received or participated in the development

of any plan establishing or urging establishment of a specific

timetable for the passage of legislation and other business currently

before the House?

HON. MR. GARDOM: My greatest interest, Mr. Member — and, I

think, of interest to all members of the government — is to have all of

the business dealt with expeditiously and properly.

MR. HOWARD: I have a supplementary question based upon the

use of those last two words in the minister's reply: "and properly."

Would the minister consider it proper to establish a specific timetable

for the passage of legislation through this House, involving in that

timetable extra sittings, closure and weekend meetings?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would have to respond to that, Mr. Member,

by saying that the government has a responsibility to govern, and

opposition has the responsibility to oppose but not obstruct. What we

have seen in this session is nothing but obstruction from the official

opposition. Eventually, Mr. Member, one can have enough of obstruction.

KOREAN TRAVEL INDUSTRY

MR. STRACHAN: A question to the Minister of Tourism. Could

the minister please advise the House what anticipated benefits will

accrue to the province of British Columbia in terms of tourist revenue

now that travel restrictions have been lifted off of Korean nationals?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the

question because it will give me an opportunity to inform the House and

the people of British Columbia of the situation in Korea at the moment.

I am very happy to report that Korea is a very thriving, bustling

country, doing very well, I might add, in world markets. Yes, they have

just lifted the travel restrictions on their people, which opens up a

whole new market in our industry. To that end, I attended a tourism

conference in Seoul last week, which was attended by 6,000 delegates

from around the world. I should inform the people of British Columbia

that most other countries in the free world are marketing tourism very,

very diligently and aggressively. Many of them are.taking entourages to

that country far larger than ours.

I would like to sum up by saying that we had dealings with many tour

operators, travel influencers and travel agents — people who move large

numbers of people to British Columbia. The trip, Mr. Member, was very

successful.

MEETING ON BILL 9

MR. BLENCOE: A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Will the minister advise whether he has been invited to attend a

meeting scheduled for Friday, October 7, between the Premier, Patrick

Kinsella and Mayor Don Ross — chairman of the GVRD — to discuss Bill 9?

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

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister again: is he

categorically saying that he has not agreed to a meeting on October 7

with those various people?

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

PIPELINE SUBSIDIES

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A question to the Minister of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources. Companies bidding to construct the Vancouver

Island pipeline have been presented with forecasts of wholesale and

retail gas prices at the Utilities Commission hearings. As the minister

well knows, the companies are concerned that the forecasts require an

operating subsidy separate and apart from the capital subsidy involved.

What provision has the government made for operating subsidies to the

Vancouver Island pipeline?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The provision of operating subsidies from

the time the line is completed until the end of the century are part of

the considerations that the federal government has put forward, just as

they have in the trans-Quebec and Maritimes pipeline which serves

eastern Canada.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A supplementary to the minister. Several of

the proponents have sought guarantees from the provincial government

that the costs of the construction and operation of the pipeline be

covered. Has the government decided to issue any such guarantees?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It would probably be more correct to say

that they have made these statements before the Utilities Commission;

they have not sought, and therefore we have not decided.

B.C. PLACE

MR. LAUK: My question is to the same minister, with respect

to B.C. Place. There has been a long-promised housing assistance

program. Has the minister decided when he will release details of this

housing assistance program for potential residents of B.C. Place?

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

MR. LAUK: Recently there was a report to the B.C. Place

advisory committee to the city that any housing assistance program

being developed by B.C. Place, so far as they are aware, would be of no

assistance to over 65 percent of Vancouver citizens who have chosen to

live in the inner city. This B.C. Place citizens' advisory committee

has been told that the B.C. Place housing assistance program will be

useless to families earning less than $28,000 annually. Can the

minister confirm this? Is this assistance program being developed

simply as a subsidy for upper-income earners?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No is the simple answer; but the real answer

is that until the program is totally released to the public, obviously

it would be premature to comment on it. I think the

preamble is

incorrect, and I'd be delighted to speak to the member at a later time

on it, or when the matter is to be presented.

[ Page

2435 ]

MR. LAUK: How much of the Goldberg report with respect to the development

of housing in B.C. Place has the government already accepted?

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

MR. LAUK: Can the government guarantee at this time that

families earning less than $28,000 annually will be able to afford some

housing at B.C. Place?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I would think that the design of B.C. Place

is such that working Canadians can afford to live there, and that's a

definition that the member may wish to differ with, but that is our

stated objective. It very much depends on the amount of density that

we're allowed by the Vancouver city council. The cost per housing unit

very much depends on how many units are constructed per acre, because

there is a significant land cost to be taken into consideration,

MR. LAUK: Does the minister approve of B.C. Place tying the

density question to negotiations with the city about commercial space

density questions? Does he approve of that form of blackmail?

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair has been

advised of two members wishing to raise matters of privilege. In one

matter, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) has afforded the

Chair the courtesy of a written submission; in the other, the member

for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has informed the Chair during question period

of his intent. However, hon. members, prior to hearing both those

matters, a matter of privilege was raised yesterday which the Chair

wishes to deal with before hearing the other two matters.

Hon. members, yesterday the member for Skeena rose on a matter of

privilege, stating inter alia "that members are being menaced or

threatened with a certain course of action unless they behave in a

certain fashion." In support of this serious charge the member states

that he has every reason to believe there exists a timetable for the

passage of legislation through this House. He further alleges that

House business is being regulated to accommodate the alleged timetable.

While the Chair has no specific knowledge of such a timetable, it would seem

to the Chair most difficult to accept the proposition, if such a timetable existed,

that this would amount to an impropriety. Indeed, it is the Chair's understanding

that most parliaments attempt to conduct their affairs in an orderly manner.

The Chair does not consider that a timetable in the hands of the government

would menace an opposition any more than an imaginary scheme on the part of

an opposition to delay government legislation would tend to menace government.

In short, each side of the House is entitled to their parliamentary tactics,

provided that these are conducted in accordance with the rules of the House.

The Chair can find no evidence of obstruction or menacing in the material presented

by the hon. member for Skeena.

There is, however another matter with which the Chair is gravely

concerned. In the statement made by the member, he refers to "the

actions of certain members who occupy the Chair from time to time," and

implied in a grossly improper fashion that the actions of the Chair are

for the purpose of serving the alleged timetable. This clearly imputes

an improper motive to the Chair in relation to its decision-making

responsibilities. If it is the hon. member's intention to bring this

institution into disrepute, he has embarked upon an effective course,

but I must assume that the member's remarks arise out of an imperfect

understanding of the rules rather than to any base motive.

I feel certain the hon. member's respect for the institution of

parliament will prevent him from falling into this error again, but I

will caution all hon. members that the use of a matter of privilege to

criticize the conduct or motives of the Chair is not acceptable. Should

it arise again, the House may wish to consider an appropriate course of

action.

Hon. members, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), having

given written notice to the Chair, will be recognized first, followed

by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).

[2:30]

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

First, with respect to the giving of notice, I refer Mr. Speaker to

pages 288 and 289 of May's ninth edition in which it is abundantly

clear that questions of privilege can be raised upon notice,

immediately when the incident occurs or upon the next occasion of the

commencement of public business. All three methods satisfy the

requirements for raising the matter at the first opportunity.

The matter which I wish to raise is the following. Yesterday I asked

the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) if he was party to an agreement among the Council of Ministers

of Education that provincial aid to students would not be reduced as a

consequence of increased federal aid to students. The minister replied,

and I quote: "Mr. Speaker, if the member consults his estimate book and

the budget just this once — I recognize that this s is a rare and

difficult matter for members opposite — he will see that the allocation

for student aid last year and this year is the same, thereby answering

his question."

Mr. Speaker, I submit a copy of page 66 of this year's estimates,

which shows that the student financial aid has been reduced from

$6,232,641 to $5,256,000. Page 138 of May's eighteenth edition says:

"The House may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement

as a contempt." If Your Honour should find that a prima facie case of

contempt exists, I am prepared to move the following motion, a copy of

which I have given to Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, firstly may I compliment the member

for affording the Chair the courtesy of written notice. Secondly, hon.

member, regarding the matter of privilege, the Chair will reserve

judgment on the matter, bringing the finding back to the House at the

earliest opportunity without prejudice to the member's case.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of privilege, obviously I was not able

to give you any prior notice except verbally, because it arose during

question period. Could 1, in a few seconds before I get to the question

of privilege, indicate to Your

[ Page 2436 ]

Honour with respect to the comment about your

earlier ruling about the question of privilege I raised yesterday, and

draw to the attention of the House that there is a notice of motion on

the order paper in my name dealing with the decision made by Mr.

Speaker some time ago that I cannot get before the House. The

government refuses to let it come before the House.

The question of privilege I want to raise now relates to answers

given to questions that I posed during question period. The answer from

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) to that question

was no; I want to submit that that is an incorrect answer. The answer

from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) was no to the

specific question I asked him. I want to indicate that that is an

incorrect and false answer. The answers from the Ministers of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and Universities, Science

and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) circumvented the question and gave

the House misleading information, and that is my question of privilege.

I want to indicate that there does exist a secret master plan, and I am

prepared to table two memoranda about that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Clearly, at this stage the member

is straying somewhat from a matter of privilege, which must be stated

briefly. It must include the facts and not be the part of debate, hon.

members. The member has canvassed this particular area on sufficient

occasions that he must be familiar with the rules, which are very

strict. I would ask him now to....

MR. HOWARD: The facts are that I asked questions and got "no"

for an answer from two ministers; those answers were inaccurate and

misleading. I am prepared to table a memorandum dated September 27,

1983, prepared by the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications, setting out a secret master plan and a timetable

planning to invoke closure, edited in the minister's handwriting. I am

also prepared to table, and will table, another memorandum, the revised

edition, signed with the name "Pat" over the name of the minister,

indicating that there is a plan setting a

schedule for completing the

session by October 29. It says so right in here, talking about closure

and slippage.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair asks for order. I ask

the member only to take a brief breath, while the Chair says that since

the member is going to be tabling the document, it would be most

inappropriate to continue to expand upon it in detail, hon. member. The

member has made his point, and now must get to the actual point of

privilege, which will be....

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We cannot do by one means, hon.

member, what we cannot do by another; therefore I must ask the member

to withdraw the terminology....

MR. HOWARD: Out of respect for the Chair I will withdraw the

use of that word "lie," but as soon as I get out in the corridor I will

repeat it again, because that is exactly what they did.

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

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the documentation may be forwarded

to the Chair as backup to the motion, but it cannot at this time be

tabled as such. The member has submitted the information to the Chair

and would be prepared to move the appropriate motion should the Chair

find on the....

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I would remind all

members possibly to remind themselves of the very real chairs that they

occupy and the chamber in which those chairs are located.

AMENDMENTS TO MOTOR

VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

On behalf of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A.

Fraser), Hon. Mr. Gardom presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to Bill 23, intituled Motor Vehicle

Amendment Act, 1983.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the

said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to

the committee of the House having in charge Bill 23.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

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

[ Page 2437 ]

PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. MR. CHABOT: I wish to move second reading of Bill 2,

Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1983. Before discussing

some of the more detailed aspects of this bill, I want to touch just

briefly on how this government sees this bill fitting in with previous

discussions we've had to date around the throne speech, the budget and

second reading of other bills. We have talked about the economic

climate, the problems presented by the past and the challenges we

expect this province to face in the immediate future. We have repeated

many times this government's commitment to help the private sector

regain their position as the leading agents for economic growth. We

have talked about what the role of government should not be and about

what the costs are when government intrudes where it does not belong.

Now in Bill 2 — indeed in Bill 3 and other acts such as the Public

Service Act — we are talking about the government and its role as a

manager of provincial significance, a manager operating under the same

constraints as all other managers. Just as the private sector is

constrained by market conditions, so too is the government in its

management function.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The public has shown that it is unwilling to provide more money to

fund government programs. The government has been told to manage its

enterprise with less. While Bill 3 addresses the issue of how

government is to be made smaller, Bill 2 addresses the issue of how

this smaller government can be made more efficient and effective. In

this bill the government asks that certain management prerogatives

which have been eroded over the last ten years be restored, so that

government can get on with the business of providing the public with

the services they demand and in the most efficient way possible.

Having laid the general foundation for discussion, I would now like

to look more closely at this bill. First, we need to remember that

government is unique in having such

an act as the Public Service Labour

Relations Act governing its bargaining process. Prior to 1972 this was

not the case. Conditions of employment and rates of remuneration for

public service employees were established unilaterally by the

government. In 1972 the government of the day established the

commission of inquiry to examine a report on the state of

employer-employee relations in the public service of British Columbia.

The commission of inquiry, while suggesting that the scope of

bargaining be as broad as possible, recommended that the merit

principle in the recruitment of staff, the pension plan and the

application of the classification system not be subject to negotiation.

When Bill 75 was introduced in 1973, it was obvious that the

government of the day had accepted the recommendation of the commission

of inquiry, and the three items identified found their way into the

legislation as excluded items. However, in addition to these items, the

scope of bargaining in the public service was further limited in that

the organization, establishment and administration of the departments

of government, plus cross-ministry training programs, joined the list

of items that were excluded from the collective bargaining process. It

is important to remember, therefore, that when collective bargaining

rights were extended to employees in the public service, the

Legislature saw fit that certain items should remain the prerogatives

of the Crown.

This situation was in no way unique to the province of British

Columbia. In all but one jurisdiction in Canada the framework of

collective bargaining in the public service was established in separate

legislation. In these other jurisdictions, to a greater or lesser

degree, there are restrictions on what can be included in a collective

agreement. One can reasonably assume that there is a general acceptance

of the principle that the Crown is a unique employer, and as such, must

retain certain items in its prerogative. This is the principle on which

collective bargaining was introduced into the public service of British

Columbia, and on which the existing legislation was structured.

In the present legislation there are five items, some aspects of

which are considered inappropriate for collective bargaining: (1) the

staffing process; (2) pensions; (3) organization establishment and

administration; (4) classification; and (5) training. What is the

effect on this list of items of the bill now before the House? The

basic framework of collective bargaining is not changed. These five

basic subject areas remain, as before, exempt. The amendments are

designed to define and clarify the Crown's prerogative in these five

general areas. It would be incorrect to categorize the amendment as a

departure from the concept under which collective bargaining was

introduced into the public service.

In 1973 the Legislature recognized that in the circumstances of the

time certain items should remain outside bargaining. Today the

Legislature is being asked to consider the framework in light of

today's situation. Today public servants have, for the most part,

gained very generous packages of wages and benefits, often far in

excess of their private sector counterparts. In the process, employees

have asked for evergreater control of what had before been considered

management rights. The parties have negotiated and argued over who

should be working where, when and how, and it has been forgotten that

public funds are at stake and that public services are being affected.

That is why we need this bill, a bill which amends the act which

originally gave the negotiating powers to the public service. It is

time once again to rethink the employer-employee relationship, as was

done ten years ago. Although it is evident that the purpose of these

amendments is to restore to government certain management prerogatives

that will ensure an effective and efficient public service, I hasten to

point out that the principles of collective bargaining provided to

government employees will continue to serve as an effective method by

which employees and the government communicate in order to reach

agreement on fundamental employment conditions.

[2:45]

Collective agreements continue to provide trade unions the right to negotiate

on behalf of their membership in many significant areas. First, these include

wage rates for all categories of jobs, and any additional employment benefits

such as group life and dental plans enjoyed by government employees. Secondly,

the collective agreement will continue to address the question of annual hours

of work, including vacation entitlement and overtime. Other examples of important

areas for discussion in the collective bargaining process include union recognition,

grievance and arbitration procedures, special leave and work premiums, workers'

safety, transfer and living allowances, and salary protection.

[ Page 2438 ]

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, collective agreements will continue to serve

as the principal vehicle for the government and its employees to lay

out the basic framework for their contract of employment. The

agreements will continue to be the place where the most important

issues related to wages, benefits and average working hours are laid

down. However, it is the Legislature which must decide what government

spending levels will be and what programs will flow from this.

Government managers must have the ability to run their organizations in

line with these democratically expressed wishes.

In good times, when there are a lot of dollars available, a certain

level of inefficiency can creep into any organization and goals can

still be met despite waste. However, the public has asked for a leaner

and more efficient government. To achieve this we are emphasizing what

prerogatives belong with management and what with the employee, what is

bargainable and what, in the public interest, is not. Mr. Speaker, this

amendment changes

section 13 of the act to address what should be on

the bargaining table. It does not in any way diminish the right of the

union to bargain wages and benefits. It is up to management to describe

the classes of jobs that need to be done in order to best give effect

to the government program for the year, and to describe how these jobs

will be organized. It is up to the union to bargain what employees

should be paid to do these jobs, what the jobs are worth. This

amendment addresses these two basic roles and restores the balance.

Each

section addresses a different aspect of this balance.

Section 13(1)(

a) of the amendment addresses the question of

recruitment and appointment of employees to the public service. It is

quite clear that in

section 20 of the act this function is given

exclusively to the Public Service Commission. However, during

negotiations in 1977 agreement was reached to include, for information

purposes only, references to specific non-negotiable aspects of the

Public Service Commissions' appointment policy in the collective

agreement. Although acceptable to the largest union, the BCGEU, the

nurses' bargaining unit resisted this approach and challenged the

employer's position at the Labour Relations Board. The board ruled that

several clauses relating to the staffing process previously agreed to

by the BCGEU as not negotiable were in fact negotiable. Such matters

include the posting procedures for vacancies in government service and

the makeup selection panels convened in accordance with the Public

Service Act. These matters became part of the collective agreement with

the nurses' union, and now form part of the negotiated agreement of the

BCGEU.

Therefore, to clarify that the staffing process has never been

considered a negotiable issue, this amendment removes any reference to

section 20. It is intended to clarify the fact that the appointment

procedure is driven by the principle of merit and stands outside the

bargaining process. This is a clarification and not a change from the

current act. The principle was in place long before collective

bargaining.

I should also note that this amendment deals with general management

practices, and that it is not intended in this

section that, for

example, the appeal process would be affected in the event that an

individual employee feels they have been wronged. While the union has

never had the right of grievance to a third party regarding hiring and

promotion, it has had, and will continue to have, rights to participate

in the procedures applying the factors of merit. But this is spelled

out in

section 20. In

summary, selection procedures are governed by

another part of the act, and these amendments ensure that the merit

principle, in its application by the Public Service Commission, remains

as a non-bargainable issue.

section 13(1)(c), Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with the heart of

management itself. The three key words of the

section remain as before,

and address the right of government to organize and to establish

ministries and branches as required, and to administer these units so

that government programs and policies are delivered in an effective and

efficient manner. However, it has been necessary to clarify what we

mean when we say "administer."

Let me digress for a minute so that I can give you an example of how

our arbitration process over the last few years has looked at the word

"administer." In a 1982 decision, because of the reference in

section

13 to what is bargainable, the Labour Relations Board struck down an

earlier ruling by saying that shift scheduling and rotation, and

related matters concerning hours of work, are not clearly and

traditionally matters of management within the meaning of the term

"administration." This was in spite of the fact that the original

adjudicator had stated:

"While

section 13(

c) does not expressly prohibit

matters of shift scheduling and shift rotation from being included in a

collective agreement, in the context of the issue before me I find them

administrative matters. In order to facilitate operational

requirements, management must have the flexibility to decide how many

employees will be on which shift at which time. I suggest this case is

a classic example of what the Legislature wanted to avoid happening:

that is, management as an institution seeking to revise a program in

the interests of patient care, only to be thwarted by the terms of the

collective agreement."

Clearly the right of management to administer has been seen in a

very limited perspective. We have attempted in this amendment to spell

out more directly what we mean by "administer."

Firstly, we mean the right of management to establish and eliminate

positions. If management is to change with the changing times, it must

have some flexibility. Managers must be able to ask: "Is a position or

a group of positions still relevant? Is there a new public need that

requires a different mix of skills?" It should be noted that sections

18 through 20 of the act lay down how management must deal with the

impact of technological change, and these sections remain.

Secondly, and in a similar vein, management needs to be able to

modify existing positions to meet new demands, whether of a permanent

or temporary nature. For example, in arbitration, the Labour Relations

Board awarded a new provision, which said in part: "The employer will

make every reasonable effort to ensure that the workload of an employee

covered by this agreement shall not be increased as a result of

positions temporarily vacant due to illness, vacation, leave of

absence, or any other reason." What can management do under these

circumstances? Must it hire a new person when someone goes home sick

for the afternoon? Does the management say to the public: "I'm sorry,

we're not offering this service today"?

Thirdly, and importantly, we need to address the issue of work

scheduling. We should recognize at the outset that through collective

bargaining a process has been established to ensure that the employer

would not be unreasonable in establishing schedules of work. This

amendment does not affect a number of important constraints on

management, including the number of hours the employee is to work in a

[ Page 2439 ]

year. That figure of 1,827 hours has been

negotiated and is a part of the master agreement that is not affected

by this amendment. Nor does it affect the fact that employees will

still be working an average of 35 hours per week, a workweek that is

among the best in the province, or vacation entitlement.

All these remain as important bargainable issues. However, within

these constraints managers need the right to

schedule work in a manner

that is conducive to an efficient public service and that meets the

needs of the people of this province. At present we have a system where

increasingly the employees determine when and for how long they will

work; when they will start and finish their shift; how the shifts will

be organized; and, by inference, how much overtime will have to be

funded by the public purse.

In 1979 an arbitration board made a precedent- setting award. This

award purported to reduce the weekly hours of work from 37.5 to 35 for

the nurses and psychiatric nurses employed directly by the province of

British Columbia. However, in a supplemental award dated December 7,

1979, the board clarified that the daily work hours for these nurses

would remain unchanged, so that on a daily basis they would accumulate

a bank of time which could later be taken in the form of time off work

with pay. Thus, the award did more than reduce annual hours of work; it

introduced a new scheduling provision in the form of earned time off

and thereby restricted management's discretion in work scheduling.

Let me repeat: the employer wanted to reduce the number of hours

worked and the arbitrator said no, the employee is to work longer hours

and will have extra time off instead. So we have cases where employees

are working longer than necessary in a given time period. They are

banking time which is then taken off, causing additional staff to be

hired at considerable extra expense, or leading to a reduction in

service for the days the employees are away. In a reverse of that

situation, some employees are working four days a week when the public

requires the service five days a week. Sometimes it is to both the

employer's and the employee's advantage to agree to flexible work

arrangements. Nothing in this amendment would stop such an agreement

being reached. However, where it is clearly not in the public interest,

either for cost or service reasons, then management must be able to

schedule work appropriately.

In other rulings it has been found in a particular group (1) that

time spent in training courses is part of hours worked; (2) that

employees must be allowed paid meal periods in spite of the board’s

acknowledging that these were "a very significant cost factor" — in

fact, about $600,000 in 1976 dollars; (3) that there must be an 81/4

hour day to provide for an overlap between shifts, despite uncontested

evidence that the employer's proposal to do away with the extra 15

minutes per shift would result in an annual saving of about $300,000

and that the purpose of the shift overlap was not needed by many of the

employees. In fact, we have had 17 formal arbitration awards on the

subject of work scheduling since 1978, at an average cost of $3,725 per

award and an average hearing time of 2.5 days.

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

The Ministry of Transportation and Highways has been party to 102

hours of work umpire hearings, none of which was filed at the request

of the ministry and none of which was initiated in the interest of

increased cost savings or productivity. For example, in the paving

branch employees were working a 7.5 hour day; the private sector paving

contractor advised he was going to an 8.5 hour shift in order to

complete the contract before the weather changed. Because inspection of

the contractor's work was done as work monitored by ministry officials,

a change in hours of operation by the contractor required a change in

hours of operation by the ministry. The umpire found that the

employer's concern was a monetary one. The ministry wanted to minimize

overtime costs and maximize employment, and the umpire did not accept

monetary costs as a bona fide reason for changing the work schedule. I

think this is a good example of the problems the ministries face under

the present contract language when they attempt to increase

productivity and — or — to decrease costs.

[3:00]

I would like finally to address the ability of management to determine programs

and services and the method of their delivery. Program determination and establishment

must remain the sole prerogative of the Legislature. Government managers are

made accountable through the minister for how well they interpret the wishes

of the Legislature. This is not a subject for the bargaining process; this

section

clarifies what is already accepted in all jurisdictions: that no bargaining

process should he able to fetter government policy. The amendment to

section

13(1)(

c) will clarify what has been one of the main sources of confusion and

debate over the last ten years, and will go a long way toward restoring the

balance between manager and employee.

section 13(1)(d), we again come up against the need for managers

to have a clear mandate and more flexibility to establish and run a

system of classifying and evaluating jobs. I should note at the outset

that the BCGEU has categorically stated that it will not agree to any

change in classification that involves downgrading. In addition, even

when there is no downgrading involved, managers are frustrated and

delayed in their attempts to get change. Since the mid 1970s there have

been many examples — ranging from inspectors of boilers through medical

technologists to stockmen and health care workers — of management

attempting to gain union concurrence with reclassification schemes.

The present system is not responsive enough. Other jurisdictions

have recognized this problem. Classification is completely excluded

from the negotiation process in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the

federal government. Once again, we face a basic management right that

has been eroded over time. It needs to be clearly shown that the

government considers it a non-negotiable issue.

Finally, in

section 2 we reaffirm that the unions will decide what

these classifications should be worth. The union can also negotiate a

process to review an individual employee's position within that system.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate that this

government is committed to showing the leadership necessary in these

restrainted times. In Bill 2 we speak to our role as managers of the

public enterprise. We expect our managers to run the most efficient

public service possible and still maintain our legislative programs.

They need the tools to do this. They need to know where the

accountability begins and ends. I think that in this bill we have given

them the tools they need to go out and meet the challenge being given

them.

I now move second reading.

[ Page 2440 ]

MR. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, Hansard

is unable to keep up, and there are no Blues — there is a delay. The

minister read extensively from a text, verbatim, and I would ask the

minister if he would table his speech so we are better able to respond

to his comments.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, with respect to my point of order, I

might just add that we would normally have access to Blues shortly

after, to per-use the minister's speech. In this instance we will

probably be denied any verbatim transcript of his remarks for the

duration of debate on this bill. In that respect, I would ask you to

urge the minister to table his speech so that we are able to respond to

it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On that point, Mr. Speaker, I think it is

common knowledge — at least for the members of this assembly — that the

Blues are not ready immediately. Historically they appear in due

course. After a minister moves second reading of a bill in the House, a

member of the opposition responds. Sometimes adjournments are accepted

by this side when the legislation has not been before the House for a

long time. But this legislation has been before the House since July 7,

my friend. You have had ample opportunity to examine the significance

of what this legislation effectively does; you've had three months. If

you've had three months to look at the legislation, you don't

necessarily need my speech notes forthwith in order to respond. You

must have some semblance of an idea as to what precisely the

legislation does. Are you unprepared after three months, my friend?

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

Let me make two observations. The minister is quite correct that the Blues, the unofficial record of Hansard ,

even at the best of times is not available immediately following a

minister's speech to any other member of this House. Secondly, the rule

with respect to tabling material is enforced when a minister has in

fact quoted from an official state document. The minister has simply

referred to speaking notes, not an official state document. It is not

up to the Chair to enforce tabling of any speech notes. The minister

may wish to do this, but the Chair cannot enforce it.

MR. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister

quoted verbatim. It wasn't speech notes; it was an entire transcript

that he read into the record of this House. I am saying to that

minister — through you, Mr. Speaker — that he identified and

articulated the basic principles by which the government is proceeding

on this bill and the arguments put forward. If he is for some reason

afraid to put forward the arguments, if he's ashamed of his arguments,

we understand.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now you are entering into debate.

MR. HANSON: But out of courtesy to the House.... The fact is

that undoubtedly we will be sitting all night tonight. There will

probably be closures this evening, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, to give us

an opportunity to respond before closure comes in, he should file....

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Not at all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The first member for Victoria

will please take his place. The matter has been dealt with by the

Chair. The Chair has no power to enforce the tabling of speech notes,

and I think that's clear. If the members wish, I will give citations

from Sir Erskine May. The minister may wish to deliver his speech notes

to other members of this assembly, but the Chair has no power to

enforce that.

Now, are you ready for the question or do members wish to debate on

this bill? I see we have a member who wishes to speak. The motion for

second reading now having been passed, debate now opens and....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the minister to withdraw that

statement. It's unparliamentary. An unqualified and brief withdrawal,

Mr. Minister. I'd like to hear the withdrawal.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, a withdrawal please.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, that settles that problem.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Withdraw.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, an unqualified withdrawal.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, hon. member. I don't know how many times

we're going to have to go through this. The member will simply say "I

withdraw," and then not I repeat the offending statement. Will the

minister so do?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

Now, on debate, the member for North Island.

MR. GABELMANN: The first observation I want to make about

this legislation is that it demonstrates clearly to everyone in this

province that the government has failed in its ability to manage. That

is what Bills 2, 3, and 11 basically say to the public. They say, and

this bill in particular says, that the government and its hired

negotiators have been unable to secure the kind of collective

agreements that they feel are desirable in this province.

[ Page 2441 ]

That is the very first thing. The other thing I want to say at this

point is that in light of the fact that Monday morning a meeting was

held in the Premier's office, and that further discussions have clearly

taken place at some level about the possibility of at least discussing,

if not negotiating, the legislative package before this House this

fall, it seems strange to me that the government would make a decision

to introduce for debate this week, at this time and in this context,

Bill 2. What it does is to say to those people out there who are

legitimately trying to have some kind of dialogue with the government

that the government wants no dialogue with them. It is not my job to

make arguments which members of the unions that are in negotiations

will be making with the employer through GERB. I don't intend to make

those kinds of arguments in discussing this bill. Although quite

clearly it would be in order to do that, I think it would inappropriate

for members of this Legislature. What is appropriate, however, is to

discuss the principle that the government sees itself as an employer

unlike all other employers, and that it needs special legislative legal

protection because it can't bargain these things as everybody in the

private sector has to do.

We hear time and time again from members on that side of the House

that what we need in this province is a return to more of the private

sector; that the government needs to emulate the private sector. Yet

when it comes to bargaining with workers, they don't want to do what

the private sector does. Can you imagine the pulp mill in Campbell

River, or any other industrial operation in this province, going to the

government and saying: "We want provisions in the labour relations act

that deny our workers the right to bargain for certain things,"

including wages under Bill 11, layoffs, termination notices and

seniority under Bill 3, and the various proposals which we'll come to

shortly under Bill 2? Can you imagine any respected private sector

employer having the audacity to ask for those kinds of provisions?

The minister made some lengthy reference to the procedure that led

to the development of the Public Service Labour Relations Act in

1972-73. I was quite involved in that process, not so much on the floor

of the House but in discussions with the minister at that time, Mr.

Ernie Hall. I remember making the argument with him — though I did not

make it on the floor of the House — that I couldn't understand why

there needed to be two separate labour relations acts in this province,

one for one group of employees and another for another group of

employees. Why is it that we require different rules, and why is it we

create different classes of citizenship when it comes to labour

relations? Why can't all the workers in this province be covered under

the Labour Code? That would be fair. Put teachers and public service

workers into that group and other public sector....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: That's my position. I said a minute ago that I

am not here arguing anybody's brief but my own. Okay? My own view of

the matter.... That's what I'm elected to do, to present my view.

MR. R. FRASER: What about the people?

MR. GABELMANN: The people have elected me. In a

representative democracy, if the member had learned anything in grade

11 social studies when we went — if he did — he would have learned that

people elect their representatives and trust them to make some

decisions on their behalf. If they don't like those decisions, they'll

unelect them at the next election.

I'm arguing, Mr. Speaker, that what the government is doing and what

this bill succeeds in doing even more is to say to those public sector

workers who work for the government itself that they are in a different

category from those public sector workers who work for a Crown

corporation or for a whole variety of other employers in this province

in indirect government service. It also makes clear that those people

who work directly for the government of the province itself have

different rights than all the people in the private sector. Mr.

Speaker, if the government feels the need to enact that kind of

legislation, then what the government is saying is that it doesn't have

the ability to go to the bargaining table like all other private sector

employers do and negotiate those things. That's where it should happen.

[3:15]

We shouldn't he debating this bill, which denies basic trade union rights

— basic rights contained in the International Labour Organization's philosophy

and standards. Especially we shouldn't be doing it in the week that bargaining

begins. The government is saying specifically and directly, although it won't

put it into words, that it wants a confrontation with its employees. It wants

there to be civil strife and confrontation in this province. There have been

no responses indicating any kind of olive branch in return to olive branches

that have been offered from people out there who are concerned not just about

this bill but about a lot of other legislation. Why can't we have cooperation

in this province? Why is it always confrontation? The minister in presenting

this bill reminds me that he was the minister who introduced the mediation commission

act some years back.

Interjections.

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

But it's interesting that the times that we've had industrial unrest

and strife in this province have been times when the member for

Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has been in chairs that lead to that

kind of situation. I remember well the days during the mediation

commission act when — if it was not as bad as today — we were leading

up to industrial unrest that didn't serve anybody's purpose. It didn't

serve the workers' purpose, the public's purpose or the government's

purpose. We're now in the same situation here. Why introduce this bill

right in the middle of an opportunity that's been presented this week

for some discussions? It may be that following discussions and the

opportunity that was evidently presented by the Premier or his deputy,

these things could be discussed in a standing committee of the House.

Why not do that? Why not take advantage of those kinds of olive

branches to try to cool down the inflamed climate that exists out there

in the community? Mr. Speaker, when I ask myself that question — why

the government would pursue this legislation in this way, at this time,

without discussion and without consultation — the only answer I can

come up with is that this government is determined to have unrest out

there so that they can come down with a heavy hand and appear as the

saviour and protector of the public. That is the only possible reason

for what they are doing.

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

[ Page 2442 ]

been able to refer to them, because I'm the first

speaker following the minister. Let me just say in passing that if the

government's definition of "in due course" were to apply, and the Blues

were to come out "in due course" we wouldn't have Hansard in

this province, because "in due course" means "never" as far as the

government is concerned, from all the answers that come in question

period.

In the first part of the minister's speech, he talked about

efficiency and effective management. Do you know what I was thinking

about while he was talking about the need for the government to be a

more efficient and effective manager? A leader in Italy talked about

the most important thing being that the trains ran on time — damn all

the other consequences, but make those trains run on time. I'm not

suggesting that this government is necessarily analogous to the

Mussolini government in Italy in the early 1920s. But that argument is

analogous to their argument. The argument that what counts above all

else is efficiency and effectiveness is the same argument that

Mussolini made about the trains. Obviously trains were a symbolic

issue. He wasn't talking just about that but about a wide variety of

facets of Italian life at that time.

I've got no quarrel with efficiency and effective management, but I

sure as heck have a quarrel with the way in which the government

attempts to develop that efficiency. It seems to me that if you want

people working for you who are also working with you, then you have to

cooperate with them. If you want people working for you who in effect

are not working with you, do what you're doing. What you're doing and

what you're trying to accomplish — for God knows what reason, because

it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to anybody that I've ever talked

to — is to make sure that the public service is dispirited angry,

bitter and fearful. What kind of productivity can be achieved when

workers feel threatened in those ways? What kind of management goals

can be reached when the people who have to put those goals into

practice and into place are fearful of their jobs and fearful that the

union isn't going to be strong enough to represent them any longer, as

a result of this bill and others, and are worried about their income

and security?

The government makes a big deal about making it the same as the

private sector. But we're not making it the same as the private sector,

because the private sector employers don't have these restrictions. To

digress for just a second — and I appreciate that I will be hinting

about another....

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

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

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

MR. GABELMANN: That's right. And if you feel you can't

provide the level of service that you have been providing, then you

have layoffs. Nobody is arguing against layoffs and due-course

terminations under seniority provisions. There is a world of difference

between layoffs and terminations, yet the government has been

deliberately, I think, making that issue fuzzy. I watched the CBC news

last night on TV and I saw the announcer talk about the government

layoffs — the 1,600 so far and the others that might be threatened.

Those aren't layoffs; those are terminations.

There is the world of difference. There are layoffs every week in my

riding in the private sector, whether it's at the pulp mill or the

sawmill, or in the woods. Layoffs happen constantly. But the workers

who are laid off are laid off in an orderly manner, under a process

that they've agreed to, and they're recalled in that same orderly

manner — under a process they've agreed to.

The union doesn't say: "We're going to treat all 40,000 woodworkers

in this province as a unit, and you have to have seniority applying

right across the board, so that if somebody who works setting chokers

in Woss Camp has more seniority than a greenchain operator on the

Fraser River, then the seniority of the guy in Woss Camp counts." The

seniority provisions apply by district, operation or unit, whatever

word you want to use. The same thing can apply in the government. If a

sawmill wants to close down forever, it can lay off its workers, and if

that employer goes back in, there will be some negotiated arrangement

for some — probably not all — of those workers to go back. If the

government wants to lay off a particular program, like a sawmill, in

the case of the human rights branch — I don't agree with that decision,

but if they want to they can — the process for achieving that is

through negotiation with the employees, in exactly the same way as it's

done between FIR and the fWA in the woods, and between other employers

and employees in other sectors of the economy. So why does the

government need these special rights and privileges? Because they want

to be more effective and they want to manage. I haven't got the exact

words of the minister, because I couldn't write them all down, but the

burden of those earlier remarks was that efficiency and effectiveness

were the primary goal.

I guess I've made the point, and I'll just say it again: if the

minister is concerned about the inability of his managers in the

government service to manage effectively and efficiently, then what he

is doing is further impairing that ability, because the people who work

for those managers are not going to feel particularly cooperative in

this climate and with these approaches. The stated goals can't be

achieved by the methods and courses of action that are being proposed

by the government. They can't achieve those efficiencies unless they

want to run an old-fashioned, dictatorial, top-down, non-cooperative

public service, in which people, because of high unemployment, which

the government also likes because it keeps the threat on those

people.... They'll go back to those old days.

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

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

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

MR. GABELMANN: It's not what you're asking for. The

legislation in 1973 didn't give to a deputy minister or to a manager

the unilateral right to set hours of work, or to

schedule all of the

time off, different hours, lieu days, vacation days or days of rest.

The legislation in 1973 did not give managers and deputy ministers

those rights. This bill does, without negotiation or consultation. The

legislation in 1973 didn't give the manager the right to refuse

overtime, to make all kinds of decisions about the way in which the

workplace

[ Page 2443 ]

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

Job evaluation is something that has been denied as a result of this

bill. The whole process of going through the job evaluation procedures

is one of the most important things that happen in the course of events

between employers and employees through the union and the industrial

relations department of the employers. Without the right for job

classification to be negotiated, the implication is clear that

classifications can be imposed without consultation, and when

reclassification can be imposed without consultation, people's money

can be changed and the nature of their work can be changed, the hours

of their work can be changed and the location of their work can be

changed, along with a whole variety of other elements — without

consultation. I need to emphasize this point: nobody argues that there

doesn't need to be some of these rights in the process. But the process

must involve discussion, It must involve negotiation. The tragic

mistake that the government is making is that it doesn't understand

that.

[3:30]

I'm just reviewing the notes I made on the minister's speech. I

don't think I'll refer to them any further, other than to say that it

was a pitiful, bleating request for management rights that have long,

long disappeared in our society, and thank God they have disappeared.

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

MR. GABELMANN: The right to administer is a fair right, but

it needs to be in consultation with the people who are being

administered. That is the essential issue. All the verbiage aside, all

the political comments aside, all the language of the bill aside, the

essential principle, the essential issue that is being raised in this

debate is whether managers govern or administer by a divine right which

allows them to do whatever they want without consultation or whether

they involve their employees in the process so there is more harmony

and more effectiveness. In my view, that is a basic difference.

I see, as an MLA, examples of both kinds of managers in the private

sector in my riding. I see that the places where they have trouble,

where they have wildcats, the place where they have low production, are

the places where the managers take the view that they have an

unfettered right to administer, an unfettered right to manage. The

other operations — and I can go through them specifically.... I think

I'd be a wee bit out of order to do that in too much detail, but I

could go through them specifically naming various companies and various

managers. The ones who get good production, the ones who don't have

wildcats, the ones who have a workforce that is more useful to the

company's objectives — often smaller, getting the same kind of results

— are those operations where the company policy is: "We will cooperate."

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

You only have to take a look at the difference between the

operations at B.C. Timber's mill in Prince Rupert and the pulp mill in

Gold River. No one in the public ever hears of industrial unrest, work

stoppages or any of those kinds of things coming out of the pulp mill

in Gold River. Why? Because the management there has historically

consulted, and it continues now to consult with its workers. It has all

kinds of processes by which it has consultations over layoffs, over

scheduling, over the whole range of things which this bill denies to

people in the public sector. They get good production. They've go' no

problems. They have one of the best labour-management relationships I

have seen in this province — a very strong union.

HON. MR. CHABOT: They would react the same way as us. If we

wanted an employee to come to work at 9 a.m. and they say they're going

to come at noon, we should have the right to say they come at 9 a.m.,

not them telling us they're coming at noon.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister makes my argument. The mill at

Gold River makes those kinds of decisions, together with the employees,

about what time they are going to come to work....

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

MR. GABELMANN: The minister persists in his interjections in

arguing that his managers are so ineffective and so unable to manage

that they need more rights than do the managers at the pulp mill in

Gold River. I don't think the managers are that bad; in fact, there is

an excellent management group in the public service. What they don't

have is the political leadership from their employer, especially from

the Provincial Secretary.

What's wrong with sitting down and bargaining the framework at the bargaining

table, and then continuing that negotiating process throughout the course of

the term of that collective agreement? I don't know any employee — you might

find one or two, but in terms of the vast bulk of the many employees — or any

union representative who would disagree with needing to make the workplace productive,

as long as it's not a sweatshop. No one's going to disagree with that.

And when a particular office is closed, say in Comox, and the next available

job is in Nanaimo, Victoria or Fort St. John, no one's going to argue that

the job in Comox should be maintained if the office is no longer there. It may

have been a wrong decision to close the office, but the workers involved aren't

going to say: "We believe it should be that worker's right to be allowed

to continue to work in Comox forever." No one in their right mind is going

to make those kinds of arguments, but they sure will if they're faced with

this kind of legislation. They wouldn't if they had an opportunity to sit

down and talk about it and negotiate those terms. A lot of those terms exist

in the collective agreement. I'm not going to go through either the PEA

or BCGEU agreements with GERB, but those provisions exist.

I think the government's decision of the government isn't so much

that it wants an ability to manage better, but that it wants to create

confrontation. It sees that there's some political value and that they

can gain some political mileage out of appearing to be against the

public service, who in this day and age for some reason have a bad

public image. And since a majority of the public wrongly feels — or

appears to feel — that the public service doesn't give an honest day's

work, the government has decided to use that attitude for its own

political advantage, and I find that quite despicable, to say the least.

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

[ Page 2444 ]

most part public servants — I hate the word

"servants," but public service people — put in far more than they get

paid for, the so-called 35-hour week. Most of the public servants that

I deal with in North Island are working 40, 50 or 60 hours a week

trying to do the job that they're being asked to do, but they can't get

it done in the limited hours in the negotiated workweek simply because

they don't have enough staff. I don't know a conservation officer in

North Island who works under 40 hours a week; they all work more. And

so do public servants in just about every other area of the government

service that I run into on a day-to-day basis; you always find them at

work after working hours.

Do you know what's going to happen with this kind of legislation?

You're not going to find them there any more. They're going to get

angry, bitter and fearful, and who's served by that? Is the government

or its managers served? Are the taxpayers served if the public service

is so threatened and maligned that its "productivity" goes down,

although in many cases I don't know how you measure the productivity.

Mr. Speaker,

Section 13(1)(

d) deals with.... I'm not going to tread

into the committee stage debate, but the minister did go through, by

section, some of the implications of the bill, so I want to do the

same, although I will save for committee stage a more detailed analysis

of the implications of each of the sections. What 13(1)(

d) does is take

the question of job evaluation and classification away from the Public

Service Commission and put it into the hands of cabinet. That's

basically what you do when you deny the right of bargaining in job

evaluation and classification. You say that no longer will the Public

Service Commission have that authority; rather, cabinet gets it. It's

yet another example of the kind of centralization, in the cabinet

rooms, of power which quite properly belongs in a more democratized and

decentralized system.

The Higgins commission worked very hard at making sure that the

Public Service Commission would be independent and would not be seen to

have any political interference from cabinet, or any other kind of

political interference. And in developing the legislation it spent a

lot of time ensuring that the Public Service Commission would be

independent. One of the reasons GERB was established a bit later was to

further enhance that independence. If the chairman isn't doing his job

and you could prove it, you could fire him.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Chairman of the Public Service Commission. I

thought you were talking about GERB; I'm sorry. You can fire the

chairman of GERB, but that's not what we're talking about. The minister

didn't bring in a bill making the chairman of the Public Service

Commission answerable to the cabinet. That's not the point I'm making.

The point I'm making is that the powers of the Public Service

Commission are being diminished by this bill, and they are being made

political. I think that is the beginning of the end for an independent

public service commission. When you combine that with the kinds of

decisions that are being made, and that I expect to see much more of in

the future, where public service jobs are being made by cabinet.... No

order-in-council jobs, not political jobs, which we all agree should be

made by cabinet, but public service jobs being made by cabinet. Of

course, the famous example of that is Tony Tozer and the government

agent's job in Kelowna. That kind of authority to cabinet, taking it

away from the Public Service Commission, I think....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: It was a political decision. We'll have this

kind of debate during committee. It's a bit difficult now. One of the

reasons the rules of the House do not allow interjections is because

for the most part the interjections are not recorded. Often they're not

heard completely accurately, and it leads to a kind of crossfire debate

that committee stage is more appropriate for. Like many others in this

House, I would get through my comments more quickly if we didn't have

the kinds of interjections that the minister is indulging in.

I'll just conclude that thought: the idea that the Public Service

Commission is in my view — and I think independent observers would

agree — having its independence and neutrality further diminished by

this legislation.

Section 13(1)(

a) and the whole question of merit. At the present

time at least there is some consultative definition of what merit is. I

haven't been an employer that often, but I have sat in situations where

I have had to take on some of the roles of an employer, and I've come

to my own conclusions about the relative merit of an individual who

happens to be working in the office or at that location. I have come to

those conclusions on my own, as a manager would under this legislation,

and then have sat down with the person involved and discovered that I

didn't know the whole story; that there was a lot more to it; that what

I thought was going on wasn't necessarily going on; that the

productivity I assumed to be happening wasn't in fact accurate. That

happens every day in the workplace. One of the ways you save the

problems coming from that is to talk, Yet the government has determined

in this particular subsection that they want to eliminate any

discussions whatsoever about merit. I don't understand that.

The

section reads: "...the powers and duties of the Public Service

Commission or its delegate under the Public Service Act respecting the

recruitment or appointment of employees to the public service, whether

from within or from outside the public service'..." This raises some

very serious questions about seniority. In my view, what this does —

and I assume the minister agrees with me — is say to managers: "While

you may have someone in your department or unit who does qualify, who

does have a lot of years of service and is next in line for this

particular job, we choose to go outside and hire somebody else for that

particular job." If the person wasn't qualified and couldn't do that

job, and there was no one in the unit or department, then I think there

is a legitimate and reasonable argument to go outside for that kind of

person. But if the person exists within the unit, the manager still

doesn't have to hire him. It could be for all kinds of reasons. The

manager may be a man who doesn't like women working for him, or vice

versa, and that happens. There may be all kinds of other biases that

the manager has. I'm not saying it happens very often, but it is

possible, and what we have to deal with when we deal with legislation

in this House is what's possible under the legislation. What is

possible is that people could be denied a rightful promotion within

their own unit, because their manager doesn't like them for whatever

reason. That's not appropriate.

[3:45]

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

[ Page 2445 ]

employees and know that if they were good enough

they could reach the top and perhaps someday become a deputy minister.

I suspect that with the increasing politicization of the public service

the dream of becoming a deputy minister is probably more and more

remote, as governments tend to want to have their political cronies, or

at least their political and ideological soulmates, as deputy

ministers, and I'm not sure that I would argue with that. But certainly

the idea that you can start out as a junior employee in the public

service in whatever area and work your way up and perhaps become the

regional manager or even an associate deputy minister.... Those days

are basically gone. In my view they are confirmed to be gone with this

legislation.

I recognize that I probably have about two minutes left, Mr.

Speaker. It is a question of deciding what to leave out, and there's so

much that I want to say that I think what I'll do is leave the rest of

these particular notes for the time when we get to committee stage. I

will just conclude by saying that I'm more than disappointed; I am,

quite frankly, outraged that this bill would be presented this week,

just at the time when it seemed as if there might be some possibility

for scaling down the rhetoric and tension in this province. The

introduction of this bill today does not assist that process. It

confirms, in my view, that the government is not anxious at all for

consultation or cooperation, but rather is desirous of inflaming

attitudes and creating unrest, because it sees that its own political

objectives can be enhanced by that course of action, and that is really

quite regrettable.

With that let me say that I hope we have an opportunity here, unlike

some other bits of legislation, to have a full debate about this bill,

which I see as one of the most important....

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

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

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

MR. GABELMANN: We're not talking about a filibuster. This

bill, together with a number of others, is of such consequence that

there needs to be time and some sober second thought, which obviously

hasn't yet occurred. It may well be that given enough days of debate on

this bill the government may well see the error of its ways and decide

to pull back so that it can have the negotiations, consultations and

cooperation that most people in this society want and that we on this

side of the House desperately want.

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

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, I don't say I'm an instant expert, but I have

listened to other members and other experts on the issues. Of course,

politicians can't be experts on everything. I think there is an

obligation on them to do the necessary research, and I feel that in

this matter we have done that. Of course, I will be one of the members

standing on his feet in this House to oppose this legislation.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, the member for Victoria was simply asking if

the minister would have the courtesy to table his speech notes in the

House, since he spoke from notes. Since that courtesy wasn't afforded,

Mr. Speaker, we will carry on regardless. I understand that Hansard will provide these speeches to us as soon as is humanly possible, given the hours of work that Hansard is being subjected to these days.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I'm taking my place in opposition to the

present bill. During his speech introducing the bill the minister

talked about the restoration of management rights. I don't think

anybody in this Legislature or in the B.C. Government Employees' Union

or in any of the public sector unions would argue or dispute that

management rights exist. In fact, in virtually every collective

agreement in the province, public or private sector.... No matter how

you like to divide the unionized workers who work in this province,

there is a provision through which the union recognizes management

rights, and that's in the B.C. government employees' master agreement

as well as in the IWA master agreement and virtually every agreement

that I'm familiar with. So there's always a recognition of management

rights in a collective agreement. It's in

article 16 of your little

blue book, Mr. Speaker: "The union acknowledges that the management and

directing of employees in the bargaining unit is retained by the

employer, except as this agreement otherwise specifies." "As this

agreement otherwise specifies" may be the problem that the government

is concerned about, but those conditions attached to management rights

were conditions negotiated in good faith between....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Arbitration.

MR. SKELLY: Negotiated to the point of arbitration possibly,

but the provision for arbitration is also included in that collective

agreement and was agreed to both by management and the employees. So

management's rights are circumscribed by agreement; they're limited by

agreement between the employees, or those who bargain on behalf of the

employees, and the employers, or those who bargain in good faith on

behalf of the employers. Collective bargaining is recognized throughout

the world as a process whereby the rights of employers and employees

are bargained and established, with compromises being made on each

side. The employees and employers are concerned that making these

compromises will result in a labour climate where management and

employees working together can produce as much as possible for the

enterprise in which they're involved, and at the same time the

employees' requirements for salaries, safe working conditions, etc.,

and also the employer's rights, can be acknowledged in writing.

It's no different in the public sector than in the private sector in

that regard, but public sector employees and employers are in a much

different position than private sector employees and employers, because

the management in the public sector also has the right to make the laws

to establish the framework in which that bargaining is carried out — to

decide what might and what might not be bargained. That puts the

employer in public sector labour relations in an extremely difficult

position — one which requires very careful and responsible thought

before they embark on changing legislation such as we're changing here,

because the employer has a built-in conflict of interest. He can

destroy the

[ Page 2446 ]

process through changing the legislation; he can

eliminate the process entirely. We can accept your assurances that you

won't do that, but that's the power that you, Mr. Minister, and the

government have, and that's why you must act much more carefully than

an employer in the private sector — because there is that built-in

conflict of interest.

There are other conflicts of interest, of course, in public sector

bargaining, because it's always possible for the public sector employer

to say: "Well, we represent the taxpayers; they are the shareholders in

this enterprise." It's always possible for the government to save the

taxpayer money by using confrontation tactics to generate a strike,

because we know that the longer the teachers are off work, the more

money the school board saves; the longer the instructors are off work,

the more money the college board saves; and the longer the garbagemen

are out of work, maybe the more money the municipality saves.

The danger is ever present that the public will be inconvenienced.

For that reason as well, both the employees and employers in the public

sector must always bargain much more carefully with regard to the third

party, the general public, than those who bargain in the private

sector, because they're dealing with.... In the forest industry they're

dealing with foreign markets, and although certain consequences could

come to the people of the province as a result of the damage done to

those markets, at least the inconvenience is not immediate, as it is in

bargaining in the public sector. So there's a greater responsibility

here on the part of the minister and his people, who are negotiating

for the government with the public service.

So what this bill indicates to me, as it does to the member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), is that in changing the legislation — in

changing the framework of bargaining — the government must be

recognizing its failure to bargain competently with its own employees.

I'm not criticizing the people who work for the Government Employee

Relations Bureau in that regard; I think they do a good job. I think

they bargain in good faith when they're not interfered with. I think

that the people on the other side of the bargaining table, the

Government Employees' Union representatives, are also doing a good job

representing their employers, as they must, because they are subject to

being fired by their own employees. There's even a labour relations

contract in effect there, and if those people don't do a good job and

don't negotiate collective agreements that represent the best interests

of their employers, then they are going to be out on the bricks

themselves.

I have no criticism of the people who are involved in the

negotiations; my experience is that these people have been working as

well as they are able. The problem is that this government has taken

upon itself to become involved in a political way with negotiations in

the public sector. There is some ideological reason behind that

involvement. I think it is a kind of general vendetta against people

working in the public sector. As the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) pointed out, there really isn't that much of a division.

There really isn't that much difference between people working in the

public sector and people working in the private sector. He questioned

the advisability of having a separate statute governing

employee-employer relations in the two sectors. In creating those two

sectors, I'm not sure we are not doing something that is totally

artificial, and creating problems as a result. I agree with him to that

extent: that possibly we should be looking at the same labour relations

statutes governing both public sector negotiations and private sector

negotiations.

[4:00]

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, again we are getting involved in

some debate across the floor. The minister says he is simply trying to

take us back to the conditions that prevailed in 1973. I can't

understand a government that wants to keep taking us back in history.

It looks to me that in its attitude the government has gone back 50

years, to about 1933, and here they say they are making a concession

because they are only taking us back to 1973 in public sector

bargaining. That's not the kind of concession we are looking for, Mr.

Speaker. It is not how far back we want to go in history; we would like

to make a little progress, even under Social Credit. We would like to

turn our faces a little bit to the future and see what improvements we

can make in employer-employee relations.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: There's the odometer roller, yelling insults from

the back of the room. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will call him to order. I

think we could have an opportunity for him to speak in this House....

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

MR. SKELLY: Not a chance, Mr. Speaker. I would never do that.

And if I did by chance, I certainly withdraw it — unconditionally,

without qualification.

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

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: What we are looking for, Mr. Speaker, is progress

in the legislative framework for employee-employer relations in this

province. The minister claims to be taking us back to 1973, but his

attitude — and the attitude of his colleagues on that side of the House

— is in fact taking us back to the 1930s in terms of bargaining

relationships between management and employees.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This government has always had a negative attitude toward people who

work for all of us, toward people who work for governments and for

public bodies. You can see it evidenced in the throne speech, when they

talked about that overweight and intrusive public sector. They talked

about productivity in the public service as being somewhat less than

desirable; about the cost of the public service in this province, the

cost of public service salaries. They talked about there being too many

government employees, when the statistics available to us indicate that

the relative percentage of employment in government, as a percent of

the gross domestic product, has been the same since the 1960s. It has

always hovered around 6.5 percent: 6.3 percent under the NDP, 6.5

percent now. It has always been the same rough percentage of the gross

domestic product.

[ Page 2447 ]

So their attitudes are mainly based on ideology rather than on the

facts. They have always had this vendetta — this negative attitude

toward employment in the public sector. I think that motivates this

legislation more than any other circumstance. It's unfortunate that

that attitude has generated a tremendous amount of confrontation

between the employees of public bodies and this government over the

last seven or eight years. It is not necessary. There are alternatives

which are more productive.

But there is no doubt that the process of employer-employee

relationships can be improved; that productivity in government programs

can be improved. There is always room for improvement. There is no

doubt that the basic concerns expressed by the minister in his speech —

shift scheduling, scheduling of hours of work and holidays, all of

those things — can be improved in order to improve the service to the

public. I just wonder how much of the problem is really encompassed in

that anecdotal information which the minister made available to us in

his speech. Are we talking about massive inconveniences to the public

as a result of shift scheduling? Are we talking about...?

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: He mentioned one case where it was $300,000; that

would give six extra trips to Broadway for ministers in this cabinet.

I'm talking about serious inconveniences to the public.

I think the minister unintentionally misled the House as to the

problems created by this shift scheduling. I'm not saying he misled the

House intentionally, but dealing with items taken out of context is I

think misleading. Those problems do not cause the kinds of

inconvenience to the public that the minister is implying. Also, if

management and government would negotiate with its employees in good

faith, those are problems that could probably be resolved by direct

face-to face negotiations. Unfortunately, it's often a question of the

attitude each side brings to the bargaining table that results in these

things going to arbitration. The attitudes brought to the bargaining

table are the really costly things to the public. They inconvenience

the public and cause problems that should not be caused in the first

place and that would not be caused if both sides would sit down in good

faith, within a responsible framework of legislation, and settle their

disagreements amicably across the table.

That can't be done by taking the province back 50 years to some

illusory idea of management rights that never really did exist and that

never really improved productivity. It never resulted in better

productivity. If it did so, Mr. Speaker, it did so at tremendous human

cost: firing people without justification; forcing people to work long

hours, or to work hours that were totally inconvenient; driving mothers

out of the labour market because things like maternity leave weren't

provided. If we're going back to an era of management rights such as

the minister is talking about, there is no increase in productivity

that the minister can prove back in those days. As I say, if there was

an increase in productivity, it was at tremendous human cost. Of

course, maybe that is what the minister is after: that those human

costs should be borne in the private sector or by the individuals who

were fired. Maybe he's like the economist at Simon Fraser.

AN HON. MEMBER: Walter Block?

MR. SKELLY: No, I'm talking about the guy who says

unemployment is caused by unemployment insurance. He's turned the whole

world around and stood it on its head. Of course he doesn't go back far

enough — beyond unemployment insurance — to investigate what caused

unemployment then. You're taking economic advice from economic

rightwing crazies who really don't make much sense when you analyze

their arguments in terms of current and past realities.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we should be looking forward in this

legislation, not moving back towards an illusory idea of management

rights that never did exist. There are many countries in western Europe

and other countries in the world where progress has been made in

legislation relative to labour-management relations. Certain rights

have been established in law which require bargaining to take place in

a certain way, and which require consultation. This is not in a

collective agreement. Certain laws in western European countries

require consultation to take place in a certain way on issues of

technological change, plant closures, removals and that type of thing.

That's in law and not in the collective agreement. Certain legislation

in western European countries establishes management obligations.

Management obligations are circumscribed in that way, not through

negotiations which take place in the formulation of a collective

agreement. Also, employee involvement in management is required in

those countries; so it can be seen in that country that the employees

have a stake in management, a stake in increasing productivity, and

have a direct interest in improving the service of government and of

private sector employers.

In fact, in Sweden, legislation is currently before their parliament

to tax private enterprise and distribute those funds to allow employees

or trade unions to buy shares in corporations. That's seen as a

positive step, Mr. Speaker, because the distinction between management

and employees withers away and employees develop a greater interest in

the profitability of the corporation. Maybe one of the things we should

be looking at here is eliminating that distinction between management

rights and employee rights; improving the process of consultation and

thereby improving morale in the public sector and consultation in

public sector labour relations; and eliminating some of the

confrontation that has developed between unions and management in the

public sector, especially under this government. So there is a trend

toward joint management, joint ownership and merger of interests of

workers and managers in order to increase productivity. The minister in

this legislation is taking us in exactly the reverse direction, the

direction we should not be going, the direction that increases

confrontation, the direction that decreases employee morale, the

direction that decreases productivity, the direction that increases

resistance of employees to management's suggestions and causes serious

problems, not simply for the government or employees but also for the

general public.

There is a classic example that comes out of Oakland, California, on

the issue of worker involvement in management. It is from an old

article cited in Time

magazine under the headline: "The New Stakhanovites." Obviously, my

colleague knows who the Stakhanovites were. Let me give you this story

from memory that appeared in Time

magazine some years ago, back around 1972, when Mr. Kaiser, whom we all

know in this province, decided he was going to close down his

continuous-weld steel pipe plant in Oakland, California. Now that he

has enough money from Westar he may open it up again. At that time he

had decided to close down

[ Page 2448 ]

his plant because he was producing steel pipe at a

rate that was 10 percent above what it could be produced in Japan. When

he told the employees that the plant was going to be closed and they

were all going to be laid off, because we have none of the legislation

that they have in Western Europe which requires provisions like advance

notice, retraining, reallocation of the work force, severance pay,

etc., that are included in legislation in Western Europe, that was all

he was obliged to do under his management rights as defined in the

current legislation in California. The workers went to Mr. Kaiser and

said that if they took over management of the plant, they could produce

continuous weld steel pipe priced competitively with the Japanese

product and of the same quality as the Japanese product. To give him

credit, Mr. Kaiser told the employees that he would give them a chance.

They changed the factory process. They maintained equipment that had

been inadequately maintained before and repaired equipment that had

been allowed to run down. They even fired some of their own members

because they weren't carrying their own load.

[4:15]

The minister talked about the merit system. Here is a case where the employees

who have a stake in the management of the operation, productivity, profitability

and the price of the product changed the process and fired their own fellow

employees because they weren't bearing the burden. As a result, after a

number of changes achieved at a very low cost, the employees of Kaiser's

continuous-weld steel pipe plant were able to produce the product at the same

price that it was being produced in Japan, and therefore were more competitive

since transportation costs weren't a factor. Unfortunately Kaiser closed

the plant down anyway. This gives you an idea of how negatively management rights,

if they aren't circumscribed either in a collective agreement through the

bargaining process or in legislation, as they were conceived at the beginning

of the Industrial Revolution, can impact upon people and economies.

We're opposed to this legislation because, in the minister's own

words, it takes us back to an era where management rights, as he

conceives them, never really did exist. If they did exist, they did not

really increase productivity, reduce confrontation, improve service to

the public or resolve labour and management disputes. What that concept

of management rights will do is simply to destroy morale, to drive

capable employees out of the public service to other governments or

areas, to lower productivity in the public service — meaning quality of

service made available to the people of this province by the government

under the programs administered by this government. So we question why

the minister should be moving back to 1973 with an attitude that would

take labour-management relations in this province back to 1933. Why

backwards? The government could have moved forward, improved

legislation, involved employees more in the management process and

improved employee morale and the whole process of the government's

dealings with its employees.

I don't feel that I can accept this type of legislation or the

attitude behind it. It is simply designed to generate additional

confrontation. I share the feelings of the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann): that to present this legislation at a time when

negotiations between the government and its employees are just

beginning or are in process is like waving a red flag before a bull. It

is designed to cast those negotiations into chaos. It's, very

unfortunate that we're dealing with this bill at this time, with its

possible negative impact on negotiations between employees and the

government. I stand in opposition to this legislation, Mr. Speaker.

MS. SANFORD: I don't think the minister has anybody on his

side of the House who wants to support him in this legislation. I don't

think anyone over there wants to support this legislation.

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

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been known

throughout the years for an anti-labour bias, which we came to

understand very clearly when he was Minister of Labour all those years

ago.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not true.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are now making personal

reflections, and are in fact getting into debate that might be better

presented in ministerial estimates, if at all. Please, could we speak

to the bill?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this particular

piece of legislation today.... When the minister moved second reading

of Bill 2 today, he read into the record his speech on Bill 2. Because

the House is involved in these unusual sittings, in that the government

is keeping us here sometimes 24 hours a day, as a courtesy the minister

could have extended, because he knows full well that the staff at Hansard is not able to keep up with....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that point has been addressed in

the House, and members should be aware that that concern will be looked

after shortly. To the bill, please.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm not asking you to make any

decision on this. I know it was raised in a point of order, and I'm

certainly not asking you to make a ruling on this. What I am stating is

from the perspective of this side of the House, as people who have an

obligation to the people of this province to respond to the comments of

this minister. The minister himself had those comments all typed out

and prepared, and he could very easily, if he had wished to avoid the

kind of confrontation that he seems to be involved in through this kind

of legislation....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is not within the confines

of this bill, either in principle, general statement or any perception.

The member will please relate her remarks to the principle of Bill 2.

MS. SANFORD: The minister states that he wants cooperation

and consultation, and that he is prepared to make allowances now and

again. But basic courtesies are sometimes not extended to those on this

side of the House, and we saw an example of that this afternoon.

When the minister introduced this bill, he indicated that in return

he wanted cooperation, efficiency and a good and effective service. Yet

this bill does more to ensure that the exact opposite will occur in

this province than any other

[ Page 2449 ]

action or legislation — coupled with other pieces

of legislation — that this government could have introduced. I do not

understand why on the one hand they talk about compromise and

consultation, and on the other hand bring in legislation which will

ensure that the exact opposite occurs, in terms of dealing with their

own public service employees.

When children are treated fairly and are taken into consideration in

the decisions made within a family, and when children understand that

there is consideration and respect for their position within that

family, then generally you will find that children respond well. They

respond as parents would like them to. When children are encouraged,

when they know that the parents and the other family members have some

consideration and respect for them, and that they are taken into

account when family decisions are made, then that family works together

and lives together far better than when the child is not consulted, not

considered, or is in fact terrified either through actions or

statements by other family members; very often that child then becomes

morose, obstreperous, dejected, sullen and uncooperative. That is

absolutely typical behaviour of a child, and we all know that is what

happens. When you treat a child fairly, things work well. When you

terrify and neglect that child, things do not run very smoothly. You

invite confrontation within that family.

When we become adults we don't change that much in terms of the way

we behave when we are treated fairly and with some consideration for

our particular viewpoints with respect to the position we might hold in

society. But when adults are neglected and their rights trampled on,

when they are in fact terrorized by their employers, then you cannot

expect those people to behave any differently than children behave when

they are treated unfairly. In other words, we carry our emotions with

us.

If the Provincial Secretary wants an efficient and effective public

service, then he's done exactly the wrong thing to achieve it. I can

think of no action that would make me less likely to look forward to my

job, less likely to perform in the best possible way, than if I had an

employer who said: "You are not quite the same as those people in the

private sector. They have a right to collective bargaining, but through

this piece of legislation we are denying you many of the basic rights

that employees in the private sector are entitled to."

HON. MR. CHABOT: Rubbish!

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

We know the public service has been terrorized by the actions of

this government. We know they have been hunted down in various parts of

this province so they could be given their firing notice. We know about

that. Everybody knows about that. We know people are being fired

without any regard to seniority, years of service, capabilities.

They're being fired because the government has put a line through their

name: that's the person who is going to be fired; no questions asked,

no recourse. That's the way the government wants to treat them. They

have a political hit list, yet the minister has the gall to get up in

this Legislature today and say that he wants an effective and efficient

public service. Can you think of any more effective way that the

minister might have asked for the exact opposite than by introducing a

bill like this? He's asking for exactly the opposite of what he says

he's asking for. His attitude as displayed through this legislation is

very similar to the attitude he displayed when he was Minister of

Labour all these many years ago.

[4:30]

Why is this government so afraid of the basic procedures of a democracy? Why

are they so afraid to allow decision-making to take place at local levels? Why

are they are afraid to allow school boards, regional boards and municipalities

to function, and why are they afraid to allow the collective bargaining process

to take place? Those are all the basis of a democratic system, the very fibre

of our democracy. But that government is denying those basic democratic. procedures

and principles, and they're denying it again here in this bill.

For some reason, this government feels it is far more capable of

making decisions for the people of this province — making those

decisions in their offices behind their heavy desks and big armchairs —

than are the people involved in collective bargaining, or those who are

elected at the local level to make decisions on behalf of the people

they represent. They are afraid of collective bargaining and they're

denying it right here in this bill. And then they ask for cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense whatsoever — unless this is what they are looking

for. Unless this is what the minister really wants, for some unknown political

purpose at this time: that he wants that kind of confrontation. He wants to

have the public service under his thumb and is denying them rights in the hope

they will react in some way he feels may be favourable to him politically. I

don't know what kind of thinking exists.

MR. CAMPBELL: Shame!

MS. SANFORD: "Shame," he says. Does the member for North

Okanagan feel, when you deny people the basic rights which are given to

most other people in a province, that you can expect them to cooperate

and perform well for you and do their jobs as servants of the people of

the province?

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're incorrect.

MS. SANFORD: There must he some motive, because he is not

doing what he says he is doing in this legislation. What he hopes to

accomplish in this legislation, he will not; he will accomplish the

exact opposite. That's what I'm saying.

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

MR. CAMPBELL: Never.

MS. SANFORD: At least the member for North Okanagan says he

would never treat his employees the way the Provincial Secretary is

treating the employees under this particular bill.

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

MS. SANFORD: The minister is now saying: "We are so inept, so

incapable of reaching a satisfactory collective agreement, that we must

have special legislation and special privileges or we'll go out of

business." How is it the private sector is able to negotiate even in

very difficult times and

[ Page 2450 ]

come up with agreements? Yet this minister says

they are so inept and incapable of management — they don't know what

they're doing; they like confrontation, whatever the reason — that they

need this special legislation which makes second-class citizens of the

people in the public service, of government employees, citizens not

entitled to the rights enjoyed by the private sector under the Labour

Code of the province. Even small businesses.... I don't know how large

a business....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, while some latitude is allowed,

the subject matter of this debate is the Public Service Labour

Relations Amendment Act. Perhaps we could relate our remarks to the

principle of this bill.

MS. SANFORD: I don't know whether the government members

recognize that the Public Service Labour Relations Act is to the public

sector what the Labour Code of British Columbia is to the private

sector.

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

MS. SANFORD: That's right. We brought in both acts,

fortunately for the people of the province. As a result, we haven't had

the kind of confrontation that occurred when you were the Minister of

Labour, Mr. Minister, I can assure you.

The Public Service Labour Relations Act sets the terms for

collective bargaining, and the amendments that are before us today in

Bill 2 would, for all time — because there's no sunset clause in this

one either — make illegal any bargaining by the B.C. Government

Employees Union on behalf of its members, on any of the items listed in

the bill. I'm not going to go into that full list, because that is

probably better dealt with at committee stage. What it does, when you

take the whole thing together in a package, is make a sham out of

collective bargaining in the public service. The minister knows it, yet

somehow he expects that by denying these employees the basic rights

that are available in the private sector, he's going to get better

cooperation and productivity, and a more efficient service for the

people of British Columbia. That is a joke. When you deny people those

privileges and rights, when you treat them as this government has

through this and other pieces of legislation, then I don't know how you

can expect the kind of cooperation the minister says he is interested

in.

The other thing this bill does is to poison the whole industrial

relations climate in the province. When you bring in anti-labour

legislation of this type....

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

MS. SANFORD: What kind of rubbish? That shows that the

minister is more interested in confrontation than in providing the kind

of industrial relations climate that would ensure collective bargaining.

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

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the minister cares

that these kinds of actions are going to affect collective agreements

all over this province. They're going to make negotiating more

difficult, going to make the whole labour management climate more

unsettled because of the way.... When the government — which sets the

tone, to a large extent, for industrial relations within the province —

brings in this kind of anti-labour legislation, when it centralizes and

says they can better determine through edict from the minister what's

to be settled in a collective agreement, rather than through the

process of collective bargaining, then he demonstrates that he has no

confidence in the collective bargaining system or in the whole approach

that is a part and parcel of democracy in British Columbia and in

Canada.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

If he has no confidence in that system — which this bill clearly

demonstrates — then I fear the kind of changes to the Labour Code of

British Columbia that we might see when in fact the government decides

to bring in those amendments. If he as a minister of the government

benches — and the one responsible for all government employees of the

province — has the attitude that is demonstrated in this bill, and in

Bill 3 particularly, then we are indeed in trouble in terms of peaceful

negotiations in both the public and private sectors.

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

MS. SANFORD: We know that minister well enough. He has a long

history, and has many times demonstrated his attitude toward collective

bargaining in this province. He's demonstrating it again in this bill

by denying those people rights; by saying he knows better and they

cannot negotiate on the basic issues, as is allowed in the private

sector. Somehow we are so incapable, inefficient and inept that we have

to have these special provisions, because we are unable to bargain at

the bargaining table as the private sector does with its employees.

That's what he's saying.

When people are able to sit down at the bargaining table and discuss

the terms, contract and conditions under which they work, it gives them

a feeling of self-esteem and makes them feel they are part of a

process. It makes them feel that their views are at least listened to,

and they can hold their heads up high. When they go to work, they know

they have bargained and negotiated and arrived at an agreement, even

though many of the issues they bargained for may not have ended up in a

signed agreement. But when you treat the public service as naughty

children to be threatened, terrorized and denied basic rights....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Terrorized?

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

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

MS. SANFORD: The first member for Surrey says it's management

when you can fire anybody at will, no matter what their record or

service; it doesn't matter what the contract says. She says that is

management. I say that's dictatorship and it terrorizes the employees

who have to live under those kinds of conditions. Those employees are

not even able to plan in terms of obtaining a home, in terms of

planning in

[ Page 2451 ]

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

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

MS. SANFORD: She is so lacking in knowledge, Mr. Speaker,

that she thinks the private sector functions the same way this

government does under Bill 2 and Bill 3. There is a vast difference.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I hope the first member for Surrey will be quiet

for a few minutes while I explain to her the basic difference between

what is happening under Bills 2 and 3 — the actions of that government

— as compared to what happens in the private sector.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if the member for Surrey will listen for a few minutes,

I will explain to her, through you, the difference between what happens

under Bills 2 and 3 and what happens in the private sector. When

employees are fired under this bill they have no recourse; there is no

consideration for any contract provisions. They are not laid off, as

the government members often say; they are fired. Under the private

sector provisions there is negotiation; there is provision for

seniority; there is provision for the way in which employees are going

to be laid off, not fired, and there is a big difference.

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

[4:45]

MS. SANFORD: I'm just trying to help out the first member for

Surrey. If the members of this Legislature don't recognize that

difference, that there is provision for a layoff based on seniority and

for recall once the economic situation changes for that company,

then....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read the regulations.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: He looks embarrassed.

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

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

MS. SANFORD: No, that's true.

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

MS. SANFORD: He won't table his speech in the house so that

we can have a look at what he had to say in his lengthy introduction to

this bill. And he certainly won't table any regulations. He's been

promising those for months, and we still haven't seen them. For the

government to go around and say there is no difference between the way

public sector employees are treated as compared to thos