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 )

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2551 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

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

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

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

Mr. Cocke

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

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

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

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

Pesticide purchases. Mrs. Wallace –– 2553

Waste assessment sheets. Mr. Lea –– 2553

Premier's comments. Mr. Cocke –– 2553

Export of sawlogs. Mr. Howard –– 2553

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

Ms. Brown –– 2554

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2558

Mr. Passarell –– 2563

Mr. Howard –– 2566

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2568

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2568

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

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2570

Mr. Stupich –– 2571

Mr. Davis –– 2571

Mr. Lea –– 2572

Mr. Lockstead –– 2572

Mr. Lauk –– 2573

Mrs. Wallace –– 2573

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2573

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1983

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, visiting in the galleries today

are Mr. and Mrs. Elworthy from Delta. I would like all members to bid

them a very cordial welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon

is a delegation from the B.C. Hotels Association: Mr. Jack Butterworth,

Tom Tidball, Louis Valente, Ted Theobald, Rod Verstrate, Larry Thal,

Fred Beruschi, Duncan Morrison and Lloyd Manuel. I would ask the House

to bid them welcome.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure and that of the

member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree) to introduce to the House

today a group of students from our old alma mater, Lord Byng High

School in Vancouver. I hope that some of them will be inspired by what

they see in the House this afternoon to go and become legislators

themselves in this fine province. They are accompanied by their

teachers, Mr. Dave Norton and Mr. Mario Ceravolo. I would ask the House

to welcome them.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome

four University of Victoria political science students who are visiting

us today: Darren Blois, Tim Henderson, Dave Forrest and David

Gartshore. I would like you to give them a welcome.

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

Oral Questions

MEETING OF PREMIER AND GVRD CHAIRMAN

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. Yesterday the minister indicated that he was not aware of a

meeting on Friday, October 7, between the Premier's office and the

chairman of the GVRD over Bill 9. Have they now decided to inform you

of the discussions affecting your legislation before this House?

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

MR. BLENCOE: Is the minister now aware of the discussions

that were to be held and of any meetings between the Premier's office

and the chairman of the GVRD over Bill 9?

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

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

Interjections.

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

hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister

advise whether consultation has been set up between the GVRD and the

Premier's office because the GVRD has lost total confidence in the

minister?

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

SALE OF STIKINE-ISKUT TIMBER

MR. SKELLY: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. On

Monday, October 3, in Dease Lake a timber auction was held to sell

timber on islands in the confluence of the Iskut and Stikine Rivers

about three miles from the Alaska boundary. Will the minister advise

what considerations led the Forest Service to hold this timber sale

despite a request from the federal Department of Fisheries to postpone

the sale?

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

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, by admission of the district manager

of Cassiar forest district, substantial questions remain unresolved

concerning acceptable ways of moving logs in the water after the sale

and of avoiding impact on the valuable fisheries in that river system.

Why has the minister decided to take precipitous action to sell the

timber before those other resource questions, which he is compelled to

respect under his own ministry act, have been resolved?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The sale will continue; however, the sale

does not in itself guarantee the issuance of a cutting permit. The

conditions and terms around that cutting permit, and the ways of

handling the timber, will be worked out to the satisfaction of both

federal fisheries people and the Ministry of Forests, and the

provincial Fish and Wildlife people. Once that has been worked out,

then cutting permits will be issued.

BANKRUPTCIES IN B.C.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs. The statistics on bankruptcies to the end of

August show that British Columbia bankruptcies have increased by 45.5

percent, while they have declined by 6 percent in the rest of Canada.

Has the minister decided to investigate the reasons why the economic

recovery in the rest of Canada has failed to materialize in British

Columbia?

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

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think there are a number of studies that

indicate that British Columbia's recovery in the coming year could

outstrip that of other provinces in Canada. So that is a positive

response.

MR. BLENCOE: Supplementary. In the first eight months of this

year, 2,600 businesses and consumers have been forced into bankruptcy

in British Columbia. What investigation has the minister undertaken

into the causes of the

[ Page 2552 ]

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

HON. MR. HEWITT: It is quite evident that the recession

causes some fatalities, if you will, in the business community. But I

would suggest to the member that one of the reasons this government has

embarked on a restraint program is to give some relief to the business

community.

MR. COCKE: First, I would like a supplementary to the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of all that the

second member for Victoria has said, has the minister decided to go to

his cabinet and reverse the decisions that they have now taken, in

order to improve the economy of the province?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

[2:15]

SALE OF BEAUTIFUL BRITISH COLUMBIA

MR. COCKE: It all depends upon how one looks at it. I have a

question for the Minister of Tourism. Has the minister decided to table

a copy of any agreement and correspondence between the government and

Mainland Magazine regarding the sale of Beautiful British Columbia magazine?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't have all the facts on that. In

order to answer the member's question properly, I will have to take it

as notice and bring an answer back to him at the earliest possible time.

MR. COCKE: Will the minister advise whether the proceeds from

renewal notices recently mailed will be retained by the government or

forwarded to the new owners?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The same answer would have to apply, Mr.

Speaker. I will ascertain the facts for the member and bring them back

to this House for his edification as soon as possible.

EVIDENCE OF B.C. ECONOMIC RECOVERY

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. A few moments ago in question period, the minister

mentioned that there were a couple of reports that said B.C.'s economy

was going to outstrip the rest of Canada in terms of growth in the

coming year. I know of only one that has mentioned that; all others

that I've seen have said the opposite. The only one I know of is the

Royal Bank newsletter. Can the minister tell me of one other?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I too was aware of the Royal

Bank newsletter. But I'll be happy to do research and bring back to the

member opposite another one that gives positive reports — and many more.

UTILITIES COMMISSION

REPORT ON SITE C HEARINGS

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, on August 25 I asked the Minister of

Energy if he would make public the Utilities Commission panel report on

the Site C hearings. In spite of that question the report remains

secret — in spite of the cost and the contribution in terms of time and

expense by taxpayers and participants alike. Has the minister set a

date for publication of this report?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I haven't. But your colleague the member

for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) has a copy, so perhaps you can

borrow it from her.

Interjection.

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

TREASURY BOARD DIRECTIVE 4-83

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of

Finance a question which I posed to him some time ago, and which I

asked again on another occasion, relating to Treasury Board directive

4-83 of August 3, 1982, part of which dealt with the restriction on

attendance at out-of-province meetings and conferences to one person

representing the province of British Columbia. Has the minister been

able to find that particular Treasury Board directive, and is it still

in force?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did undertake

to return to the House with that information. Other events occurred,

and I apologize to the House for that.

The Treasury Board directive certainly permits latitude. It depends

to a very large extent on the event that is being attended. The member

will know that a very significant part of the travel undertaken at

taxpayers' expense in British Columbia is undertaken by officials,

rather than by elected representatives or members of the government.

Therefore, Treasury Board analysts and I review a variety of requests

which relate to travel, whether it is to Washington State, Ottawa, or

whatever; and depending on the importance of the meeting — or the

lesser importance of the meeting — the number of people required can

vary. It is therefore a guideline.

MR. HOWARD: A supplementary question. Inasmuch as the

Treasury Board directive says quite clearly that only in exceptional

circumstances will additional representatives be allowed, can the

minister advise the House what exceptional circumstances permitted

approval to be given to the Premier and an entourage of suitcase

carriers and public relation flaks to go to Helena, Montana recently?

MR. REID: All the way to Montana!

Interjections.

[ Page

2553 ]

PESTICIDE PURCHASES

MRS. WALLACE: I have a question for the Minister of

Environment. Many months ago I placed on the order paper a question to

him regarding the amount of pesticide purchases each year: the

quantities, the cost and for what purpose. It is order paper question

14. I have waited a long time, and I have not yet received an answer.

Can the minister tell me when I can expect an answer to that question?

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

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

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

WASTE ASSESSMENT SHEETS

MR. LEA: To the Minister of Forests: about three weeks ago,

when questioned in the House about the waste assessment sheets that

MacMillan Bloedel would be submitting to the Forests ministry for the

Queen Charlottes operation, the minister said he would make those

available. Does the ministry have those waste assessment sheets

available at this point?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I haven't received them yet, but they may

be in the ministry files at headquarters. I'll check that out, and if

they are I will be very happy to provide them to the member.

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

MR. COCKE: I'd like to direct a question to the Premier. The

Premier is quoted as having said yesterday that there will be no

restraint on the private sector. Thursday, October 6 is the date of the

paper and it was yesterday's discussion with the Employers' Council,

where he got a standing ovation. May I ask the Premier whether or not

that means he is turning the developers loose after the passing of Bill

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is out of order, hon. members,

to refer to a newspaper or other

article in question period. That is a

long-standing rule, and I'm sure the member for New Westminster is very

familiar with it.

EXPORT OF SAWLOGS

MR. HOWARD: I too would like to direct a question to the

Minister of Forests. Is the minister aware that B.C. Timber Ltd. in the

northern area of the province is selling sawlogs to Metropolitan

Trading for export in raw form, while at the same time B.C. Timber is

taking steps to shut down some of its shifts in its sawmilling capacity

in that same area?

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

MR. HOWARD: I would ask the minister whether he was aware that B.C.

Timber in the northwestern part of the province is engaged in selling sawlogs

to a company called Metropolitan Trading for export in raw log form, while at

the same time B.C. Timber is taking steps — and already has taken steps — to

shut down some of its sawmill capacity in that area.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware — and I would

rather doubt the fact — that B.C. Timber is selling sawlogs to

Metropolitan Trading for the purpose of exporting. If they are selling

logs to Metropolitan Trading, Metropolitan Trading would still have to

go through whatever procedures are in place, which are rather extensive

in detail, before they could get a permit to export such logs. I am not

aware that they are doing such but I will certainly make inquiries and

satisfy myself, because I certainly don't intend to take the word of

the member for Skeena for such a fact.

MR. HOWARD: I don't ask the minister to take my word; I just

ask him to be an effective administrator of his department and pay

attention to what's going on in the industry. I ask the minister

whether he will inquire into the reported practice by B.C. Timber of

buying, on the spot market, lumber for cash from other producers, and

committing itself to buy lumber on the futures market while at the same

time laying off workers in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member I think is referring to a rather hysterical article, I believe in the Vancouver Sun

some weeks ago. If the member takes up on rumours and undocumented

reports like that, it is no wonder that his facts are so often wrong in

this Legislature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave granted.

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

[ Page 2554 ]

PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

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

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'd like to speak in opposition to this piece of legislation — not

in isolation, but taking into account that it is part of a general

package which tends to erode the rights of working people in the public

sector. I want to refer, first of all, to the statement read by the

minister in introducing this piece of legislation. He spoke about the

general acceptance of the principle that the Crown is a unique employer

and as such must retain certain items in its prerogative, and then went

on to list five such items. What those items represent are items which

are no longer — some of them never were — part of the collective

bargaining process: the staffing process, pensions, organization

establishment and administration, classification, and training.

When we look at the 1982 master agreement between the government of

British Columbia — the Government Employees Relations Bureau — and the

B.C. Government Employees' Union, we see that some very basic and

intrinsic things which used to be part of the collective agreement are

no longer part of the collective agreement, or certainly will no longer

be part of the collective bargaining process once Bill 2 becomes law.

We also have to take into account that Bill 2 is only a part of what

this is all about. It really should not even be viewed in isolation

from Bill 3. The real damage occurs when you put those two pieces of

legislation together, although Bill 3 on its own is bad enough. One of

the things that will happen once this legislation becomes law is that

section 13 dealing with layoff and recall will no longer be a part of

the collective bargaining process. It is not going to be possible any

more for government and the representative of the public sector

workers........

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I don't want to go back and start debating Bill 3

again, Mr. Speaker, because I know you will rule me out of order.

Believe me, if I had the opportunity to do so I would, because there

are a lot of things left to be said on Bill 3.

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

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

The layoff and recall procedures are a pretty basic and intrinsic

part of the collective bargaining process. It should be mandatory,

really, that those decisions not be made by either one group or the

other. The kind of consultation and cooperation which takes place

during a collective bargaining session should be compulsory when one

starts to look at laying off workers or recalling them. A number of

things that can happen in the collective bargaining process won't

happen and can't happen and usually do not happen when arbitrary

decisions are made.

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

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

[2:30]

MS. BROWN:

Article 13.01, "Layoff and recall"; that's what

I'm talking about. Let me read the

section of the bill that I am

specifically addressing myself to: "the organization, establishment and

administration of the ministries and branches of the government,

including the right of the government to establish and eliminate

positions" — that's what I'm talking about — "to assign duties to

positions, to establish work scheduling and to determine programs and

services and the method of their delivery" are no longer part of the

content of the collective agreement. That's what I'm talking about. Is

it possible that since this bill was introduced yesterday by the

minister it has been amended? Has this

section been removed?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not yet.

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

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

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) says

that on me two heads would look better than one. That's fine. That

shows that the one head I have is attractive enough to him that he

wouldn't mind seeing it duplicated, which is okay. I accept his

backhanded compliments in the way in which they are delivered. But back

to the matter at hand.

The decision about terminating, eliminating positions and assigning

duties and positions is one that I think the people in those positions

know as much about as their employers, even as unique an employer as

the government. And the best decisions made in this kind of situation

are always made with consultation between the two groups. A consensus

is arrived at, either through confrontation first and compromise

afterward, or through compromise the whole way through. But you know,

it is true — I honestly don't know who was the first person who made

the comment — that no one of us is as wise as all of us. Somebody said

that. That holds true of this as it does of many other things. When the

government takes unto itself — even as unique an employer as it says it

is — the prerogative to make arbitrary decisions about the

establishment and elimination of positions and the reassigning of

duties, really what it is doing is depriving itself of the benefits

which would accrue to it if it were willing to sit down and consult,

and to allow the collective bargaining process to take place.

That's not an original idea on my part. I didn't create collective

bargaining. I didn't design it, as the Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) is saying. It is the result of the evolution

of worker and employer, of management and employee, over a period of a

number of years — trial and error — seriously addressing themselves to

the best

[ Page

2555 ]

way of arriving at the most satisfactory labour

climate for a province, or for an industry or a business. What really

works in the long run is what is in the best interests of the community

at large. That's how the collective bargaining process evolved. It

wasn't that someone one day sat down and wrote a treatise on it. It

wasn't handed down by a government or whatever. It evolved; it came

about through the very difficult process of evolution. It then became

one of the cornerstones of our democracy.

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and Environment (Hon. Mr.

Brummet), in speaking earlier this morning to a different issue on this

particular bill, pointed out that the democracy under which we live is

so important that whether we are government or we are opposition, we

are both committed to its preservation. One of the cornerstones of a

democracy in terms of a good labour-management climate, even dealing

with as unique an employer as the government, is the collective

bargaining process. What the minister is saying, and has gone on to say

in his speech, is that the framework of the collective bargaining

process will continue; however, certain things are to be excluded from

it. What the opposition is saying is that the exclusions in themselves

threaten the collective bargaining process, which is the reason we are

opposed to it. We believe that for collective bargaining to work there

should be more consultation, more cooperation, more working together

between employer and employee, not less. We say that every time you

take something out of the collective bargaining framework, you weaken

the whole framework. After a while it ceases to be democratic in its

nature and it ceases to do the job — both for worker and for management

— that it was designed to do.

I want to go back to the family support workers and the arbitrary

decision made by this unique employer called the government: that in

terminating the employment of some workers in one particular ministry,

the workers who could best be disposed of, the positions which could

best be eliminated and the program which could best be wiped out or

eradicated was the family support program. That kind of decision should

not have been made in isolation. That kind of decision should have been

part of the collective bargaining process. In fact, the people working,

or their representatives.... Not every worker participates in this

debate; they have their representatives. Through their representatives

they should have had the opportunity to sit down with the government,

through the government's representative, and talk about the layoff and

recall procedures; talk about whether the community would be well

served if these positions were eliminated; talk about whether this

program was no longer useful or whether in fact we had become a society

which no longer needed the kind of assistance to families which these

workers were providing. Then there would have been no margin of error,

or a very small margin, when that happened. There would have been

dialogue and consultation; there would have been input from both sides

of the table. The best interests of everyone would have been served.

Another

section which they lose has to do with seniority and what

happens under those kinds of circumstances. It speaks specifically of

auxiliary employees in 31.02, loss of seniority in 31.04, layoffs and

recall positions in 31.05. In fact, what will happen once this

legislation is passed, in tandem with Bill 3, is that somebody

somewhere in the government will make a decision that despite

seniority, despite quality-of-work record, despite everything, a

certain number of people are going to lose their jobs. The decision on

whether or not they would ever be recalled will be made strictly by the

employer, with no consultation, no discussion, no dialogue and no input

from either the workers themselves or their representatives. That is

anti-democratic. We live in a society in which, whether you work for

the private sector or the public sector — and I've worked for both —

you should have the right, and those rights should be protected as part

of the dialogue about what happens to your worklife.

People who have given 25 or 30 years of their lives are now

receiving a pink slip that says: "As of October 31, you are considered

redundant." First of all, the choice of words is not only insulting,

it's hurtful. Nobody should ever be referred to as redundant. However,

the notice goes on to say — it will become law once these two bills are

passed into the body of our legislation — that any decision about their

being redeployed to another ministry or to another part of the

province, or about being recalled for either that job or some other

job, or about their being permanently laid off — in other words, moving

from "laid off" to fired or terminated — is going to be made without

any input or any advocacy on their part, either by themselves or by

their representatives in the union. As a province, as a democracy, we

either do recognize and accept the important role trade unions play in

our society in an orderly labour-management climate in which we want to

live, or we don't. But we can't have it both ways. We cannot say that

we respect the rights of workers in our province to organize and to

come together as a body in what we call a "union, " but we retain unto

ourselves the prerogative to decide on what issues that body can or

cannot represent them. It shouldn't work that way, but it does.

Bill 2, when taken in tandem with Bill 3 and a number of other

pieces of legislation — Bills 26, 27, 7, 11 and all those others....

When you put all those bills together, what you really get is a package

of legislation which very effectively erodes the rights of, and

threatens the protection of, working people in this province, whether

they work for the public or the private sector. That is the real reason

why this opposition, speaking on behalf of the people who elected us,

are opposed to this. Sometimes there's a tendency to forget that we too

have a mandate; we also were elected by our respective constituents and

were given a job to do. I was elected to sit in opposition. I'm not

bringing down legislation or trying to be the government; I am speaking

on behalf of those people who voted for the opposition. I hope I will

be able to continue to do that effectively for another number of years.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about some of the benefits — I know the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is going to start screaming

"single issue" at me as soon as I open my mouth — which have accrued to

women in the workforce as a direct result of the collective bargaining

process, and which I'm afraid we'll lose as a direct result of Bill 2,

Bill 3 and these other pieces of legislation that are coming into

place. When you are part of a bargaining....

[2:45]

Interjection.

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

Just let me say that I sincerely appreciate the argument that the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds is presenting at this point. It is within

the scope of the bill. But there has been some mention of other pieces

of legislation, which offends the rule of anticipation. There has also

been some mention of

[ Page 2556 ]

debate that might be better covered under

ministerial estimates. I'm sure the member can get back to the

principle of the bill before us, the Public Service Labour Relations

Amendment Act, in terms of what she's saying.

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

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

I was talking about the benefits that accrue to women in the

workforce as a direct result of being part of the collective bargaining

process. A number of public sector workers — over 51 percent — are

women. The government, this unique employer that the minister told us

about, is the largest employer of women in all of British Columbia, and

it should be doing a much better job. However, the kinds of things that

women have been fighting for in terms of equal pay for work of equal

value, in terms of breaking out of the traditional lowpaying ghetto

where they still find themselves — office assistant 1, office assistant

2 is where most of them are — the kinds of methods that can be

evolved....

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Two out of 20.

MS. BROWN: No, it's more than 20. Anyway, it's less than 10

percent. Considering that they make up more than 51 percent of the

people employed by the government, I would keep that a secret if I were

the Provincial Secretary. I didn't mention that, out of shame for the

Provincial Secretary.

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

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You're welcome.

MS. BROWN: Do you know what happens under the collective

bargaining process? The representatives of those women, some of them

women themselves, can sit down with the government and bargain for

something we call bottomloading, for example. We can talk about giving

more to the people with the least and less to the people with the most,

and try somehow to redistribute income in a fairer and more equitable

way. That can be done through the collective bargaining process. In

fact, it has been done. It has started. Now we're going to lose that.

Now it will be up to the government, in its infinite wisdom, to make

those kinds of decisions unilaterally. The government will decide who

gets laid off. The government will decide who gets recalled. As we saw

— and I forgot to mention this earlier — most, if not all, of the

family support workers who were arbitrarily laid off, without

consultation or dialogue, by the Ministry of Human Resources were

women. There was no sitting down or discussion with the workers or

their representatives prior to those layoff notices going out. There is

an opportunity now to sit across from each other at the bargaining

table — the minister looks at his watch — and bargain collectively in

terms of what is in the best interest of employees: if they must be

laid off, what the recall situation should be and what kinds of

protection should be built into it; how layoffs should be handled and

the kinds of protection that should be built into that. It's no longer

a bargainable issue once Bill 2 becomes law.

It says, "No collective agreement shall affect, " and then it goes

on. I don't want to read it again because I don't want to use up

valuable time in rereading, for the minister's benefit, that he has

taken unto himself what he refers to as the extraordinary prerogative

of deciding the right to establish or eliminate positions, to assign

duties to positions, to establish work scheduling, to determine

programs and services as well as the methods of their delivery. What is

even more insidious than that and what we are really running into is

13(l)(

a) where it says that "the powers and duties of the Public

Service Commission or its delegate under the Public Service Act

respecting the recruitment or appointment of employees to the public

service, whether from within or from outside" — key word — "the public

service" are now no longer a part of the collective agreement. Do you

know what that means? Let's stick with the family support workers. That

means that the government can arbitrarily decide to lay off all of the

family support workers but, deciding that the job is important and the

program should continue, can then contract that job out outside of the

public sector. That's what this says. You have to take 13(l)(

a) and put

it with 13(l)(c). Because I can't reflect, I won't reflect on what I

should reflect on in order to put the whole package together, to show

you that that's what can now happen. As a matter of fact, the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), after presenting all of those

family support workers with their termination notices, publicly stated

that she is now expecting the church and other community groups to do

the job that they used to do. The right to permit that and to allow

that to happen is enshrined in this legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just briefly, it is a very fine point, but

Bill 2 speaks of eliminating positions. Another bill speaks of

termination. I realize it is a delicate point, but we could remember

that principle.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, it is so delicate a point that it is

"floating like a butterfly but it is stinging like a bee" — that's how

delicate a point it is. If you can eliminate a position without

terminating a person, then you really are delicate. There is no

question about that. I'm going to stick with eliminating positions. I

won't talk about terminating people. When you eliminate the family

support worker position covered by the collective bargaining wage

agreement, which wasn't all that great to begin with because, as I

pointed out to you earlier, Mr. Speaker, they make in the vicinity of

about $1,500 a month before deductions, which means that their

take-home pay wasn't that great — mostly women, a lot of them single

parents.... Do you know what happens when those positions are then

turned over to community groups and to church groups and other groups

who have to turn around and come to the government and ask for grants

in order to carry on those jobs? The very same jobs, the very same

positions, end up with salaries and wages attached to them far below

even the measly wage which those people were making when they were part

of the collective bargaining process. That's how it works. The end

result of this is that people who were poorly paid in the first place

have their poverty exaggerated and enshrined and perpetuated. That's

what happens.

[ Page 2557 ]

The minister is shaking his head....

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

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about children; I am

speaking about people who have to support their families, who are going

to lose jobs that then are going to reappear under a different

umbrella. They are now going to be the responsibility of community and

church groups who have to go to the government for funding to pay those

salaries. The salaries are going to be considerably less than the

$1,500 which the minister tells me his children would be happy to

settle for. My children would be happy to settle for that too, but that

is not the point.

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I am telling you what the legislation does.

Section 13(l)(

a) gives the government the right, after it has

implemented 13(l)(

c) and terminated a program covered by the collective

bargaining process, where the workers in that program have the right

and the ability....

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

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

MS. BROWN: Yes, I do. One of the things that the government

tries to do is to say: "We're not firing people; we're terminating

programs." Programs don't run themselves. People run programs. They

say: "We're not firing people; we're wiping out positions." A position,

Mr. Speaker, is held by a person. We are talking about living,

breathing human beings. Calling them programs or calling them positions

or calling them auxiliaries or calling them equivalents — whether

full-time equivalents or part-time equivalents — does not alter the

fact that what you are doing is firing people. That's what you are

doing. Now I'm willing to play the word-games with you....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment, please. All hon. members will

come to order. Please don't interrupt the member who is now speaking. I

hope that the member appreciates what a delicate difference there is

between this act we are debating and another bill that is not before us

at this point.

MS. BROWN: Sure. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify for your

benefit and for the benefit of the members over there that I am willing

to use the term "position" and I'm willing to talk about full-time

equivalents and I'm willing to talk about auxiliaries as long as it is

understood that we are talking about people — a rose by any other

name....

Interjection.

[3:00]

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: That's right. I am talking about people who are

going to lose their jobs and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who in trying to denigrate and debase what I

am saying, prefers to heckle across the floor about the clothes I am

wearing. That's the kind of mentality that we have to deal with. I was

not elected to come to this House because of the clothes I wear; I was

elected to come here to do a job. The Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs may not be aware of that. Regardless of whether he

approves of the clothes I wear or not, I'm going to continue to do my

job.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hold on for a second, hon. member. I'll ask

all hon. members to come to order. I ask the member participating in

the debate to stick to the bill at hand.

MS. BROWN: I am sticking to the point. What this piece of

legislation does is to give the government the right to make poor

people poorer. It gives the government the right, which it has already

exercised despite the fact that this bill is not yet law, to wipe out

positions, terminate programs and throw the people who work in those

positions and those programs out of work. What one of the ministers of

that government has said is that those programs can reappear under the

auspices of community groups or under the protection of the church. All

I am saying is that what this bill does in

section 1(

a) is allow the

government to do that. It states very clearly that the government has

the power to appoint employees from outside of the public service —

section 13(l)(a).

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is

my understanding that we are on second reading of the bill, which is

the general principle of the bill. The member is continually referring

to specific sections and subsections of the bill. Perhaps she could be

directed to address the principle rather than a specific section.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point of order is well taken, hon.

member. For the second time I would ask the hon. member to stick to the

principle of the bill, please.

MS. BROWN: The principle of this bill is to give the

government the opportunity to fire people without them having recourse,

through their collective bargaining unit, to discuss either their

layoff or their recall proceedings — without them having the protection

of their jobs through either their work, their unions or their

representatives.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.... I

believe standing order 28 requires a member who is speaking to take her

seat when a point of order is raised. If we could perhaps enforce that

standing order, then I would get on with my point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member please take her seat.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member keeps referring

to firing of people, eliminating people, which has nothing to do with

this bill. I think perhaps she is referring to the wrong bill in her

discussion of second reading.

[ Page 2558 ]

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point of order is well taken, hon.

member. I would again ask the hon. member to stick to the principle of

the bill. I know the hon. member has the ability to do that and that

she will.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion. The

explanatory notes tell us that this amendment clarifies what can be

included in the collective agreement and what cannot be included in the

collective agreement. That is the subject matter. So what I would like

to do, Mr. Speaker, is move a motion that this bill be not now read a

second time but that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the

Standing Committee on Labour and Justice. I just have to sign it....

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

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Journals

of the House provide adequate information in that regard. We will

endeavour to provide the information to the hon. member. In the

meantime, the motion is out of order, and perhaps we could continue to

speak on the principle of Bill 2 until the Clerks find the exact page,

if that's of any assistance to you.

MS. BROWN: Do I still have time?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I haven't seen the light come on

yet, and you are still on the principle of Bill 2. The Clerks are doing

the research on your amendment which is out of order.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

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

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 33

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 9

Howard

Cocke

Stupich

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Passarell

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

MR. D'ARCY: In addressing my concerns regarding Bill 2 and

the principles of it, particularly as they relate to the approximately

40,000 employees directly within the provincial civil service, I want

to say at the outset, in case there is any misunderstanding, that we

have no quarrel with the need to....

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

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I spoke this morning between 3:10

and 3:45, approximately, on a motion that the bill be not read now but

rather be considered six months hence.

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

[3:15]

MR. D'ARCY: In returning to Bill 2 and the principles

contained therein, I was relating to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the other

members of the House that we have absolutely no quarrel with the need

to downsize and reduce the expansion of the public service in British

Columbia, particularly as it relates to the lack of proper

administration by the Social Credit Party in the last few years. We

know very well that with the depression in British Columbia, caused by

the rightwing authoritarian centralists who are in control of the

Social Credit Party, the government has had to use what used to be

called attrition to substantially reduce the size of the civil service.

We have been told by the member for Columbia River himself that the

size of the civil service has in fact been reduced by perhaps as many

as 6,000 or 7,000 people in the last few years.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Well, the words have been attributed to you.

Please address the Chair if you're going to talk across the floor.

Perhaps you would consult with your friend from Langley and go to the

press council if you feel you have been misquoted.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member

is making an erroneous statement. He is attributing to me certain

remarks about the down-sizing and number of public servants that have

left the service through attrition, which has never been reported in

the press and is false. I wish the member wouldn't attribute those

kinds of remarks to me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you will have ample opportunity

in closing the debate to clear up any misunderstanding regarding your

comments. I caution the hon. member not to interject across the floor

in chit-chat. Please direct your comments to the Chair.

[ Page 2559 ]

MR. D'ARCY: The member for Columbia River is a jovial,

friendly sort of fellow, but I know that as soon as he takes under

notice the many questions that have been given him in question period

and brings the information back to the House — he has made those

commitments so many times over the past three months — he will be

tabling precise figures on the matters he has raised while interrupting

from his chair. Then we will not have need for this sort of straying

from the principles of Bill 2 while we are in discussion of this very

important piece of legislation.

In removing essential services from the community — services which

are deemed essential not only in British Columbia over the past 20 or

30 years but which have been deemed essential in other jurisdictions in

Canada, both at the provincial and the federal level, and indeed in

other jurisdictions in North America and in the democracies of western

Europe.... Certainly I don't believe, in spite of the directions that

the minister and the government may wish to go, that British Columbia

is unique in the needs of the taxpayers, the people of British Columbia

and the voters; nor are we unique in the economic problems that we are

facing.

I want to back up the statements I'm making here with some research

which I've had the opportunity to do over the past few hours while this

bill in principle has been debated, and show once again quite

categorically that the public sector has not had the kind of rich

contract advancements, in terms of wages or benefits, that have been

enjoyed in private sector collective agreements, or even in the private

sector where there is no collective agreement, even where the employees

simply bargain in a catch-as-catch-can way, more of a goodwill or even

old-style patronage way. The reason for this is that the government

simply does not face the market conditions, provincially, nationally

and internationally, that the private sector faces. The private sector

has to attract and retain good people. They cannot afford, in many

cases, the risk, or even the threat of a risk, of an interruption in

being able to deliver their goods or services. When times were good, in

1980 or '81, a number of very rich agreements were worked out, even in

cases where a union was not involved. I'm quite sure the minister is

aware of that.

The minister hopefully will explain at some point — perhaps when he

closes debate; perhaps when he produces regulations — why in this

atmosphere where the provincial civil service.... And this is the

provincial civil service collective bargaining act, or words to that

effect; that's what it's intituled. In considering the collective

bargaining climate and the lack of economic coercion, if I could use

that term, that the provincial government has faced over the last few

years relative to the private sector, perhaps he will explain why he

feels that he and his fellow ministers on the treasury benches need

special privileges and powers which the private sector has not needed

and has not required in terms of dealing with the demands of their

employees, whether or not those employees be certified into a trade

union. The minister has not made any attempt to explain that anomaly,

and neither have any of his supporters. Mind you, very few have spoken

on his behalf, but we can only assume that sooner or later some of

these mysteries will be resolved for the people of British Columbia.

There is no question whatsoever that the resource industries of this

province in particular, which have been hard-hit by falling — or even,

in many cases, practically nonexistent — foreign markets, have been

severely affected in terms of a cost-price squeeze.

There are shapes flipping past me. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I know

the member for Columbia River is listening intently — more intently

than he did this morning, I might point out. He was looking much more

comfortable this morning, but I notice that he is also more bright-eyed

and bushy-tailed than he was 12 hours ago.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking on Bill 2, the Public Service Labour

Relations Amendment Act, 1983, we want to emphasize that the private

sector was never afraid to go out and meet the challenge, even when

they were in a very difficult bargaining atmosphere. They're not afraid

now; they were not afraid in '80, '81 and '82; and they will not be

afraid tomorrow. They're not asking for special privilege. In fact,

special privilege really wouldn't do the private sector any good. I

think that the minister, in his private moments, might admit to that,

because he knows that in the private sector they have to compete with

each other for competent people. They have to maintain morale,

productivity and keep an atmosphere of innovation. Perhaps the minister

has decided that he does not want that in the public service. I believe

that should be in the public service; I believe it's in the public

interest.

The Social Credit governing party in B.C. and the minister in

particular have not presented to this chamber, or to society at large,

a shred of evidence why the route they are going in Bill 2, which is

unique in Canada, North America and in the developed democracies of the

western world — and we are a developed democracy, there's no question

about that — is necessary here when it has not been deemed necessary

anywhere else. Governments elsewhere have succeeded where they wished

to eliminate certain programs, to, as the minister is wont to say,

downsize government and to terminate employees. Other jurisdictions

have managed to do it by the normal processes of attrition,

redeployment and consultation, and the normal processes of common law,

even if their particular provincial or state legislation is fuzzy in

this regard.

Within the private sector there is a voluntary commitment, when

people have to be redeployed, a department closes, a

section of a plant

closes or when, on occasion, an entire division closes.... There is a

system of early retirement, redeployment and retraining whereby

employees of reasonable standing are always given that opportunity to

transfer to, perhaps, a less desirable locale or job. They are always

given that opportunity. The minister may well say: "Oh, that's

patronage. That's a thing of the past. That's Big Brother looking after

the employees." But it's a system which has worked and still does work

in the private sector, even in the absence of collective agreements.

Even when there is a collective agreement in effect, we find that the

effect on people when a division closes or technological change comes

in, or whatever, is very little. There is very little difference

whether there's a collective agreement in place or not.

So, once again, I ask the minister to explain to the public of B.C.

the reason that he needs Bill 2, why he cannot use those relevant

sections of the Labour Code of B.C., or any other labour statute which

may well apply to working people and to professionals who are employed

in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, he has not even attempted to do that.

He has not attempted to explain why he needs a special piece of

legislation that relates only to provincial employees.

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

[ Page 2560 ]

MR. D'ARCY: I'm not going to refer to any other pieces of

legislation. But why he needs a third level of labour legislation

relating only to the provincial civil service and not to the public

sector at large — to the Crown corporations, municipal governments,

school boards, B.C. Hydro, or any of those areas.... Why does he not

need one all-encompassing piece of legislation?

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Provincial Secretary

maintain some sort of order in debate. And I would ask the member to

stick to the principle of Bill 2.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just

want to say that I get so agitated when a member makes such erroneous

statements regarding why we need this piece of legislation. The NDP

brought in this legislation in 1973.

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

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, specifically dealing with Bill 2, I

have been talking precisely and exactly about why we do not need the

principles embodied in Bill 2. A major principle is to create a

separate category of labour legislation for employees within the

provincial civil service and not employees within the public sector at

large, outside the provincial civil service. That's bad enough, Mr.

Speaker, but it has been covered by other legislation which I will not

refer to. I strongly believe that, considering all the many divergent

industries that we have in this province, all the many divergent types

of employers — a drugstore, coal-mine, pulp mill, smelter, Safeway

store, the wholesale industry or the fanning industry.... With all the

many divergent industries that we have, we can have one piece of

legislation and one labour code that can apply to them all. But in the

public service, which has a great deal of similarity.... Whatever you

find in the public service, we find that the government needs not one

but two separate pieces of legislation, and two separate tiers of

responsibility. I want the minister to please explain the rationale for

that.

[3:30]

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to one other thing about the bargaining

power of the provincial civil service and, by association, anybody in

the public sector. When a manufacturing operation is closed by a strike

or lockout — I use this as an example; let's say a pulp mill, a

smelter, a mine, whatever — by and large, apart from the loss of income

in the community, the disinterested public is not directly affected

that much in terms of being inconvenienced. I should say "relatively

speaking." However, when a public service is shut down by a strike or

lockout, whether it be the school system, garbage collection, an

airline, the ferry system, the liquor stores — I know that's not an

essential service but, unfortunately.... It does get people's backs up

when any area of the provincial civil service, or any other public

area, is shut down. The public is very much annoyed, far more so than

if there is a strike or a lockout in the private sector. This further

reduces — without any of this legislation — the bargaining power of

resorting to public opinion that both sides use in a collective

bargaining dispute, which hopefully can and will be settled without

acrimony. But it cuts down the bargaining power relative to the private

sector that public sector unions have — in this case, the public sector

collective bargaining agent of the people referred to in Bill 2, which

is fundamentally the provincial civil service.

The minister's claims, when he moved second reading of Bill 2, and

the statements made by other government apologists that the government

is faced with a management problem the same as the private sector, are

patently false. It can be quite clearly demonstrated that the

government is not in the same position when dealing with its employees

as private sector employers. It's a completely different bargaining

position, even without any of this special discriminatory legislation

that gives the government powers which no private sector employer has,

even under common law — and most interestingly enough, to my knowledge,

no private sector employer has asked for them.

It's rather interesting that that distinguished Canadian, William

Hamilton, who had a distinguished career as a Progressive Conservative

federal politician in the John Diefenbaker government and who was for

many years president of the Employers' Council, shortly before his

retirement from the British Columbia Employers' Council commented that

labour legislation in British Columbia was pretty good as it was, and

he hoped that the government wouldn't tamper with it. There may be some

unofficial feelings, but that was the official position of that

particular spokesperson for the major employers of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister again that if he is going

to do any research, or do any brainstorming when he closes debate on

this bill, he should give serious consideration to presenting some sort

of evidence from some democratic jurisdiction as to some precedent or

some recommendation for bringing in a piece of legislation like Bill 2.

We in this province have had some bad experiences in the past with

so-called innovations brought in by Social Credit governments. I'm not

going to dwell in detail on that, but we cannot afford a major level of

innovation in such a critical area as the administration of the

collective bargaining process relative to the 40,000 provincial

government employees in British Columbia who are covered by Bill 2. In

the past, some of the Social Credit financial and other innovations —

well-intentioned, I'm sure — have come up kippers in this province. We

all know them: the Columbia River Treaty, the Wenner-Gren program, the

heroin treatment program, the hydrofoils to Seattle and the yachts that

sank in the Gulf of Mexico. We on this side of the House sincerely hope

for better for the ALRT and northeast coal. Why take a chance on this

untried, unproven, unsubstantiated innovation? Bill 2 is a major

innovation that deals with 40,000 human beings within the public

service, the way in which they are going to live and the way in which

they are going to perform in their jobs in the service of the taxpaying

public of British Columbia. I certainly don't want the minister to do

anything that is going to threaten what everyone agrees, I think, is a

fragile recovery that we are going through in British Columbia. Even

the most optimistic reports, like the Royal Bank's, indicate that we

are only going to gain back about 35 percent of the gross provincial

product losses that we had in 1982. I certainly don't want the

government, or us in this House as elected members, to do anything to

threaten the ability of the people of B.C. to work themselves out of

the hole that we are in.

Also, I have a tremendous concern that the government's ability to

retain and hire professionals in the various fields of expertise is

tremendously important and will not be impaired by the passage of this

legislation. Mr. Speaker, it has been my

[ Page 2561 ]

experience, and perhaps it has been yours and the

minister's as well, that the overwhelming majority of provincial

government employees are not militant in the sense that we are familiar

with, say, with the workers in resource industries and the usual norm

in, say, mines, logging or manufacturing. Provincial employees,

especially the professionals and technicians, sincerely want to do

their job. They are serving people, the handicapped, the public and the

private sector with what those who need and use those services consider

essential. There are fewer than 10 percent of the provincial civil

service, if that, who really want to work to rule or be involved in a

strike or a lockout. They don't want a strike or lockout. They want to

work, and they want to perform, and they want to produce, and they want

to be in high-productivity jobs for the provincial government. I think

they need to be encouraged in that feeling rather than discouraged. The

absence of work stoppages within the provincial civil service over

many, many years is indicative of what I am saying, in spite of

relatively low settlements compared with their friends, neighbours and

other family members working in the private sector.

In moving to substantiate some of my own thoughts, I want to quote the influential American writer Robert Reich, from his book The Next American Frontier.

He observes that in our society today we "lack mechanisms for the

allocation of capital towards activities with long-run returns and that

the fear of job loss...." Certainly the passage of Bill 2 is going to

reinforce the fear of job loss in the provincial civil service. That

forces allegiance to work rules that are not in the best interests of

the administration of the civil service. It forces allegiance to job

classification standards, rigid COLA clauses and consequent barriers to

adjustment and redeployment. Mr. Reich goes on further to observe that

"financial capital formation is becoming a less important determinant

of a nation's well-being than human capital formation, skills,

knowledge and the capacity to work together within America's labour

force, which will determine our collective standard of living."

I cannot imagine the minister disagreeing with that. I don't think

he would, but he seems to feel that that is valid for everybody else,

but not for him. I know he is slipping outside to indulge in that

delightful habit of his....

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

MR. D'ARCY: Well, the only one I saw you enjoy is smoking a

cigarette. You may enjoy other bad habits too, but we won't discuss

these in the House.

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

It is ironic that in its declared intent to achieve restraint the

B.C. government is acting in a manner likely to jeopardize not only the

real resource base on which we depend in the longer run but, more

importantly, the social tolerance and community institutions which will

enable us to work together to utilize those resources most effectively.

The minister, when closing debate and producing regulations and

enforcing this bill, if indeed it is passed, may well agree to take his

employees into his confidence about his discussions with various

management consultants. He may modify his position in a number of

areas, but, Mr. Speaker, at this time there is no commitment to that;

there is no commitment to any recognized vehicle towards the goal of

downsizing government or at least restraining its growth. We on this

side of the House recognize that the government's commitment to

restraining growth and downsizing government is new in 1983, because in

1981 and 1982, when the New Democratic Party members in this House

wanted to restrain the government's growth in the civil service, which

Bill 2 relates to — wanted to restrain the government's growth in

ministerial advertising, new office space rental through the B.C.

Buildings Corporation, new furniture, and in expanding the size of

government in the marketplace....

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

MR. D'ARCY: That's right, Mr. Speaker, the principle of the

bill is that restraint is the Social Credit idea in Bill 2 in 1983. I

am just relating that to the fact that the New Democratic Party were

talking in vain about such things in 1981-82, and we are still talking

about them in 1983, and we want to help the government.

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

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

Interjections.

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

On Bill 2, referring to the provincial government and their move

through Bill 2 to have greater scope in moving toward centralization

measures and deregulation measures, in my view these will increase

dramatically rather than reduce the workload and the volume of trivia

which is going to be flowing to ministers and deputies for resolution.

I believe that a good, viable civil service that can act on its own

with good morale is far more likely to relieve the ministers of the

Crown from relatively petty considerations and to allow them to do

their job in a more effective way, at the same time serving the public.

In referring to the feeling of security that the 40,000 — or however

many they are going to be after Bill 2 — provincial civil servants....

"Permanence in the workplace is more likely to provide

the courage to speak frankly and strongly than is dependence on

ministerial favour. Even without selection based on patronage but with

clear dependence on ministerial or governmental pleasure for retention

of office, a changing set of advisers is less likely to have the

experience, the interests or the security that will produce clear

warnings when they may be needed most in the public interest."

That is a concern that I have on this side of the House, that when

something happens that is quite severe out there in a resource

industry, when something happens in the marketplace that we in our

ivory tower here or the ministers of the Crown should be aware of, if

there are not skilled, qualified, observant and imaginative people out

there to report back through the deputy minister to the minister what

the responsible and reasonable need of the public is through the large

amount of taxes that we all pay to the government of British

[ Page 2562 ]

Columbia, then I don't believe the government or

this chamber are fulfilling the mandate that we all have to serve the

public in a positive way.

[3:45]

Going back once again into the minister's concern in measuring the productivity

in government activities, which Bill 2 directs itself to, there is no question

that Bill 2 means there will be no significant role for collective bargaining

in the provincial public service. The prospects for much less job security in

the public sector than exists today and than even has become customary, as I

mentioned earlier, in the private sector.... I don't think there is

anybody in the province.... The recent survey shows that 25 percent of the

public were not in favour of restraint. I think that that survey is...perhaps

I shouldn't use the term "bonkers" but it's a little bit out,

because I wouldn't be a bit surprised if virtually 100 percent of the people

of this province supported the notion of restraint. Virtually every citizen

of B.C. has had to exercise restraint in their private life, in their job, in

their business and in their recreational activities. I am quite sure that regardless

of who was in government, there would be restraint and there would be austerity

in the province of British Columbia today. Certainly there is restraint and

austerity in every other jurisdiction due to the economic difficulties that

we are in.

I am not going to speak too much longer. I think the points have

been made by other speakers and I don't want to be tedious and

repetitive. Possibly some of the points I have made have been made in

slightly different form by other speakers and I know that you have been

extremely tolerant, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this particular bill.

Because of the gravity of this particular piece of legislation and its

severe effects on the economic climate in British Columbia, its severe

effects on the way that other jurisdictions look at us in British

Columbia, the way that the rest of Canada looks at us.... It is very

important that our international competitors have confidence in dealing

with our companies and making contracts with our companies. It is very

important that the public sector of British Columbia — I should be

specific, Mr. Speaker; the provincial civil service — can deal in a

detailed and effective way, especially with those areas of the economy

which are essential for economic recovery: certainly such services as

land titles and registry, the registration of mineral claims, the

superintendent of broker's office, the need for having an efficient

court system, the administration of justice, all these things which we

take for granted within the provincial civil service. If there is a

concern on the part of the 2.8 million people we have now in British

Columbia that they may not get those kinds of services — they may not

be able to find a conservation officer when they need one, they may not

be able to find a Forest Service employee when there is need to protect

that resource — that fear, both within and outside the province, could

severely affect the ability of our economy to recover and our ability

to attract investment capital, contracts, sales business and expansion

of our industry. Certainly if there is a concern about the province as

an administrative authority — the province's ability to deliver the

services which it is mandated to do under the constitution of Canada

and under the various statutes which it has passed over a period of

time.... I relate to your concern, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 2, if it in

fact will — and I contend it will, if passed in its present form —

threaten the ability of the provincial civil service to deliver those

services and that kind of confidence out there because of the lowering

of morale, the loss of innovation and perhaps a loss of some very

competent and valuable people, then economic recovery in the province

of British Columbia could well lag behind the rest of Canada and the

rest of North America for that reason alone.

That's why I want the minister to seriously consider, when he closes

debate, how he is jamming this bill through the House and proclaiming

it and simply going ahead without explaining to the public the

regulations, without explaining the philosophies behind it, without

giving some backup technical information from someone in the public

administration field, either trained or elected, that bears out the

route he is going. What the minister says he wants to do, through Bill

2.... What he is going to attempt to accomplish has been accomplished

and is being accomplished in other jurisdictions without legislation

that embodies the principles of Bill 2. It has been accomplished in

other provinces of Canada even under conservative-type governments. It

has been accomplished in the United States and in the state of

California without legislation of this type. As we all know, what the

minister wants to accomplish has been realized within the private

sector in many cases even though the private sector employers have

nowhere near the kind of bargaining power that the government has with

its employees.

Therefore, to give the minister that chance, I would like, with all

respect, to move that the bill be not now read a second time, but that

the subject matter be referred to the Labour Relations Board of British

Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, in reading the motion I find the motion out of order. Citation 61,

section 3, pages 132 and 133.

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

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 10

Howard

Lank

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Hanson

Lockstead

Wallace

Passarell

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

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 42 to

correct a statement attributed to me. During question period today the

minister....

[ Page 2563 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment, hon. member.

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

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I can't accept the point of

order, not under standing order 42. I'm sorry, hon. members, they are

the standing orders of the House.

I will recognize a speaker on the debate.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, in reading

standing order 42.... Could you explain to me why I cannot, or at what

point I can correct this? This is the first opportunity, and it

indicates that a member may speak twice in explanation of material that

has been misunderstood.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, question period was between 2

and 2:30, and it is now 4 o'clock, so I would not say that this was the

earliest opportunity you have had to raise that matter.

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

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

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, members in this

House are constantly rising on points of order to interrupt someone who

is speaking to correct something which they think has been

misconstrued. The member for Cowichan-Malahat at least had the courtesy

not to interrupt the proceedings of the House. She has asked to make a

brief correction, and I accept your decision that it may well be out of

order to do so at this point, but would it be possible — if the member

for Cowichan-Malahat is going to be very brief in her correction — for

leave to be given to make a brief correction?

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

Leave granted.

MRS. WALLACE: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers) implied that I had a copy of a report from

the Utilities Commission — the panel report on Site C — and that I had

quoted from that report. I would like it to be known that I do not have

a copy of that report. I had information relative to the content, but I

am still waiting to receive a copy of the report.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, leave was

granted to the member on the understanding that she wished to correct a

material part of her speech, as it is cited under 42 (l). The member

attempted to correct or offer a different opinion of a statement made

in question period by a minister. She was simply entering into debate,

and I think it is unfortunate that perhaps the member misunderstood the

intent of standing order 42.

MR. SKELLY: If the minister had been in the House he would

have stood up to correct the point himself. I discussed the matter with

him after the question period, and he indicated that in fact he was not

sure whether the member had a copy of the document or not, and he was

perfectly willing to see the issue corrected.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think we have canvassed the

point of order. You have had an opportunity to correct the statement,

and leave was granted by the House to do that. It is a typical example

of what happens when we stand up on points of order at intermittent

times during debate. I think we should get back to the debate on Bill

2, hon. member.

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

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

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

MRS. WALLACE: Under standing order 42 a member is allowed to

correct a statement. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

indicated I had not corrected a statement. I had corrected a statement

attributed to me that I had quoted from a report. I did not....

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

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

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we have canvassed that well,

you've had an opportunity to speak and to clear up any

misunderstandings that members may have had about statements made, and

we shall now continue with debate on Bill 2, please.

The minister.... The member for Atlin.

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

Interjection.

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

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, to begin I'd like to read the

explanatory note on this two-page bill, the Public Service Labour

Relations Amendment Act, 1983: "This amendment clarifies what matters

may not be included in a collective agreement between an employer and

employees under the Public Service Labour Relations Act." In essence,

it says that basically the government wants to delete statutes of long

[ Page 2564 ]

standing in relation to public service employees

and wants to include certain aspects that have not previously been

found in collective agreements between the government and public sector

employees. One of the important issues in why the opposition has

opposed second reading of Bill 2 is the aspect of collective

agreements. A founding principle in this country is that of collective

agreements between employers and employees: the aspect of faith in

collective bargaining that has led to signed legal contracts. It has

taken a long time to have this collective bargaining aspect brought in

to the workforce, and after hundreds of years of striving by the

workers for a fair and honest collective agreement, with one stroke of

the pen, this government, through Bill 2, wants to erase from our

labour history all the dedication and commitment.

Why is this government bringing in this bill at this time of very

touchy labour-management relations in this province? Depending on

whether you read Mr. Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute, his

synopsis of the economy, or read others, we're in a very delicate

situation right now in this province, and what we don't need is a

confrontation between government and its workers. I think the reason

the government is bringing in this bill at this stage of the game is

that it's setting the stage for similar legislation to cover every

worker in both the private and the public sectors in this province.

This is just the start — attacking the public sector employees.

Basically this Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1983

will break the ice in the very fragile climate that exists between

employers and employees in the private and public sectors by destroying

collective agreements. I see no logical reason why, in the present

recession, this government is encouraging labour unrest through this

bill, or why this government would bring in a draconian bill that will

in effect hurt the small businesses and industries that are trying to

recover from the last few years of recession. In a sense, Bill 2 is

anti-profit, anti-worker and anti-management. That is something very

different for Social Credit, which has, decade upon decade, stated that

they are a party of small business and industry. You're turning the

clock back by attacking the people whom you state you are out to

protect. This bill will cause labour unrest right through the province.

Some of the aspects of the bill itself in regard to what I see as

the important issue in the collective bargaining aspect is the method

of delivery of government services, meaning that we can debate

contracting out. I have two thoughts on the contracting out of

government services. Later in my presentation I will be stating some of

the positive aspects of certain very narrow regards in the contracting

out of government services. Overall, I'm basically opposed to the

contracting out of government services because it's just a scam, a con,

to allow a number of dedicated public servants in this province —

single parents — to be canned by the government without cause, to lose

their jobs — for what purpose? Not to save money. The government

attempts to bring forth that it's restraint; that it's going to save

the public money by firing 15,000 or 5,000 public sector employees.

It's just the opposite; you'll cause more money to come out of the

government coffers by doing this.

In the bill there is one basic philosophical principle where the two

parties differ: the aspect of the equality of rights between public and

private sector workers. If the government truly believes in equalizing

conditions, why are they restricting the bargaining rights held by

workers in the private sector?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member....

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that's not it. This is a public service

labour relations act only. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the member, but

this deals with the public service, not the private sector.

MR. PASSARELL: Let's take it to the extreme here. If the

Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1983 passes, it will

deny jobs to people with collective bargaining rights in this province.

Let's take it to the extreme, because I think much of the legislation

presented by the government is extremist. Let's look at what would

happen if this bill passes, which it will today; we have 22 speakers

and you have 35; we're down to the best of it. Let's look at some of

the labour-management unrest that has been fuelled by the government.

Let's look at the north. As the Speaker knows, winter is upon us in the

great white north. Many of us who live in the Atlin constituency are

isolated and have to depend on the road service to get out or to move

around. No commercial aircraft land in our small communities. We have

to depend on Highway 37. If this bill does go through and the BCGEU is

pushed into a comer and loses some of the bargaining rights that were

guaranteed through previous legislation, what will happen in the north

when the residents find out that no more graders are coming out for a

day or two? That could be a real disaster in many regards. I certainly

hope the government will look through Bill 2 before it starts bashing

around government employees.

Regarding winter, another thing that could happen in the extreme has

to do with fishing licences. I know my hon. friend from Point Grey is

an avid sports fisherman. Let's just say that government employees in

Atlin walk out; they're forced into a confrontation with the government

if this bill passes. People don't pick up their fishing licences, so

you'll have poaching going on. People will be going out on the ice and

drilling holes, fishing in the night. Individuals could end up falling

into these holes. It could be a national disaster.

AN HON. MEMBER: It could be dangerous.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm glad you people have finally hit on this.

I've been keeping this in my desk for a long time — it's called "The

Bare Facts." It's a column that I'm going to be doing with Hansard

weekly. I have these little bare facts that I'd like to share with my

colleagues. Do you remember the old Groucho Marx routine? When the name

was said, the bird came down. Well, we've heard it, so we'll give one

here.

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

[4:15]

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

MR. PASSARELL: The answer is: none . As soon as we hear that famous thing that the old Groucho Marx....

We've got a lot of these bare facts here.

Interjection.

[ Page 2565 ]

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

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Unbelievably big fish. You'll have to make me

a promise that you won't come up and open up a restaurant, all right?

Not after you said our restaurants up north were just greasy spoons.

Another important aspect of Bill 2 in regard to the problems that

this government could find itself in, and some of the disasters and

hardships that will be placed upon residents in the great white north

if this bill passes and forces organized public sector employees to go

on strike.... We're talking about something that could drastically

affect Christmas. As all hon. members in this House know, Christmas is

an important thing. We can't postpone Christmas.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: I don't understand the inane comments coming

from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), who is not in his seat.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: You people are going to restrict the residents

of British Columbia from having Christmas? You are already restricting

public sector employees.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the hon. member for Atlin would make his

remarks relevant to the bill, maybe the heckling would cease. I'm

having a hard time relating the member's remarks to the principle of

this bill.

MR. PASSARELL: No, no, I like the heckling, Mr. Speaker.

That's the fun part. What scares me is when they are yelling across

that they're going to take Christmas away from people.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the yelling and the heckling and the

interjections will no doubt cease, and cease immediately, when the

member returns to the principle of Bill 2, the Public Service Labour

Relations Amendment Act, 1983.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague from

Omineca really believes in Santa Claus. I know he does because he has

told me so personally. But back to Bill 2, Mr. Speaker: what are we

going to do if we start closing down and there are picket lines put

around vendors?

The other important aspect that could cause problems in the north is

marriage licences. If the government offices are closed up, where are

people going to get their marriage licences? Look at that — they will

be denied the opportunity of divorce. How can people even understand it

if we have these problems? I know my colleagues across the floor here

understand that we have to keep the government offices open so marriage

licences can be dispensed.

Mr. Speaker, if this bill is passed and we have a confrontation in

this province, people will be denied the right to have a divorce — the

opportunity to have a divorce in this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is all extremely entertaining, but I

will remind the member that he is speaking to an anticipated action

that is not contained in this bill. To be technical, the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) was asked to decline comments with respect

to excluded employees and I think the member for Atlin would now be

discussing excluded employees as well. We must be fair. If the minister

was asked to withdraw that type of statement, or not make them, then....

MR. PASSARELL: I will leave divorce and go on to names. If

this bill is passed — which will probably happen today — and there is a

confrontation in the province, how will...? Let's say a picket line is

put up around the government office: how will parents be able to

register the names of their children? This is important because it is

really unfair to allow children not to have names. I could see the

problems that parents would have if this bill is passed and they have a

newborn baby, and they can't register the name of the child at the

government office in the great white north. Let's say you wanted to

send a coupon in to win a prize or something and you don't have a name

for your child. So it is not fair if this bill passes. We have to talk

about delaying this bill until after Christmas.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we're off the hoist. We are now

to the bill, please. Hypothetical arguments really would have to be

viewed as being out of order. We have a very specific bill before us,

and I would ask the member to speak to the principle of the items.

There are many of them within this bill.

MR. PASSARELL: Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the fundamental

thrust of Bill 2 is to narrow the scope of collective bargaining of

unions covered by the Public Service Labour Relations Act? A key point

in this bill is that the bill does not equalize conditions as between

private sector and public sector organized workers. Unions certified

under the Labour Code can bargain hours of work, working conditions,

but rather than manage the public service through collective

bargaining, the government has chosen to take the easy but

confrontational route of restrictive legislation by bringing in Bill 2.

The bill itself, and the government bringing forward this bill, is

in my opinion deliberately attempting a showdown between the public

sector unions, for one specific reason: that is, partisan political

purposes. The government is in essence scapegoating the public service

in general, and the BCGEU in particular, for reasons which make no

sense whatsoever. We don't need any kind of confrontation at this stage

of our fragile economy. Bill 2 does exactly that. They are attempting,

to a certain extent, to portray public service workers as a privileged

class, as I heard in debate when we discussed the education bill. That

makes no sense whatsoever when you look at the logic of it because with

this bill they are trying to strip the public sector workers of rights

that are held by organized workers in the private sector. One of the

things that I find distressing with the bill is what is happening today

about bargaining in good faith. People across this province

[ Page 2566 ]

are seeing the broken provisions aspect of the

current collective bargaining agreement, such as the obligation to

consult with the union prior to introducing legislation changes.

I think it can be summed up that Bill 2 represents nothing less than

an admission of failure to manage on the part of this government. What

they're saying is that they can't bargain under the same terms and

conditions as faced by employers in the private sector. It is an

attempt by this government to deprive public sector workers of

bargaining rights held by unions certified under the Labour Code. What

it really boils down to is that they want to dictate, not negotiate.

Bill 2 will affect a number of public sector workers in jurisdictions

in this province — employees of school boards, hospitals, colleges and

Crown corporations.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nonsense!

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

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

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: No.

MR. PASSARELL: What are they?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Public sector.

MR. PASSARELL: Hospitals, colleges and Crown corporations.

The bill repeals

section 13 of the act, the content of collective

agreements, and basically eliminates the power of the union in

collective bargaining. It eliminates that aspect of collective

bargaining.

In the bill itself,

section 1 is basically the content of collective

agreement and some of the deletion clauses which will happen if this

bill passes. One of the things that have come up in the last few months

— particularly in

section 13(l)(

a) of the current act — the PSLRA —

provides that collective agreements should not affect the principle of

merit in appointment and promotion for public service employees. In

practice this clause has been interpreted to mean the application of

merit principle can be bargained, and this has been reflected in the

collective agreements. The new

section of this bill will allow a

collective agreement and shall not deal with methods of recruitment to

the public service, whether from within or without the public service.

In essence, this will free the government to appoint widely from

outside the public service and should be seen as a clear attempt to

undermine the professional public service and restore a patronage

system in this province. An example I can give you quickly is the Tozer

affair.

Interjection.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 2, please.

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

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: That's what I heard you say, my hon. friend

from Surrey. It is not a relative, Mr. Speaker. But who knows who Tozer

is mixed up with? But we'll go on with Bill 2.

[4:30]

One of the aspects I talked about in my introduction is that the amendment

will allow for the contracting out of government work in accordance with the

privatization thrust of the budget, and strikes down

article 24 of the BCGEU

agreement dealing with this issue. In the province of Alberta they allow the

contracting out of certain government services, particularly in the highway

department. I would certainly hope that it's not the effort of this government

through its bills to privatize the Highways ministry and allow private contractors

to provide the same services that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways

provides. I think in some regards — and this would have to be looked at stringently

in, I think, Committee of the Whole House — maybe in a metropolitan area this

might be a successful application of the principles that you brought forward

in the throne speech. But I think when you start looking in the rural areas

of this province, contracting out of Highways maintenance could be disastrous.

The Alberta principle started in the metropolitan area, and I would certainly

hope that the new amendment in this bill would not allow contracting of government

work in the Highways ministry, which I am the critic for.

In conclusion here, because I know my hon. friend from Point

Grey.... It's pretty late for him; I know we've been up all night, and

I'd like to get the debate over with, if possible.

There are a couple of examples from George Meany, president of the

AFL-CIO, who made some statements regarding some of the problems the

United States found on a similar bill back in 1935, in which public

sector employees were denied the right of private employees when it

came to labour codes, and how the action itself — and I'm quoting from

an

article called "Union Leaders and Public Sector Unions" — caused a

certain sense of second-class citizenship in the workplace by allowing

private sector employees to have certain advantages over public sector

employees.

We've debated this bill through the night, and I think in conclusion

I would have to say that listening to the debate last night for about

26 hours.... Maybe it's getting close to 30 hours that we have spent

discussing Bill 2. I've seen some aspects that I find particularly

offensive, in the carrying out of some of our legislative duties. I'd

have to say on behalf of the official opposition that we will be

opposing Bill 2, the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act,

1983. Hopefully the government, before it starts a confrontation in

this province between its citizens and itself, would have a second

look. Rethink what you're trying to do with this bill, because nobody

needs or wants a strike, and don't push people into comers, as you're

only going to find them coming out kicking and causing more problems

for this province. What we don't need is more problems at this stage.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'm under no illusion that anything

I might have to say will have any influence on dissuading the

government from its course. It hasn't exhibited any intention or desire

of doing that up until now on items before the House. Nonetheless, one

needs to say those things that are necessary.

[ Page 2567 ]

There was a time when we had no collective bargaining for people

employed in the public service. In fact, there was a very denigrating

term used to identify people working for the government: they were

called civil servants. Its origin was in the dim past, when the British

Master and Servant Act was the prevalent piece of labour-management

legislation, if one could call it labour-management legislation. But it

gave sole and supreme authority to the master, and no power or rights

of any nature to the servant. That was the origin of even the words

"civil servant, " and that term was used for too long in this province

and for too long in this nation, up until about ten years ago.

During the time that there was no collective bargaining arrangement

for people employed in the public service, it operated on the basis of

the master and servant concept. If there were increases in incomes to

people employed in the public service, it was a discretionary matter of

the cabinet, often employed just prior to an election, for obvious

reasons having nothing whatever to do with the level of income of

people in the public employ or any justification except straight

politics. That was an unfortunate set of circumstances, but it did

exist for a long period of time.

Collective bargaining in the public service in one sense can be

isolated because of the peculiarities of the relationship between

employer and employee, and who the employer is, both immediate and

ultimate, and also because it can be connected to collective bargaining

as it developed outside of the public service. I think it's necessary

to look at that very briefly. Collective bargaining developed in the

private sector, as it was called, after many long years of struggle and

difficulty and trouble, and always unsupported by law until after it

had been established, after the bloodshed had taken place and the

misery had been gone through. Then government stepped in and said: "Now

that you've won those rights, we'll give some legal structure to the

way they're going to function." We saw that happen in this province in

the immediate post-Second World War period, when the original federal

order-in-council under some wartime legislation which set up a

structured relationship for collective bargaining was to expire. The

provincial government moved into the field and said: "Here's what we're

going to do provincially." It was called the Industrial Conciliation

and Arbitration Act, or ICA Act. It underwent a number of changes over

the years, but it always excluded people in the public employ. They

were outside of what was available to other employees and other

employers in this province.

We are now taking a move backwards in time. I'm the first to admit —

others have said it; I'm not using it in the sense that this is an

original thought that nobody else has had in mind — without any

difficulty in saying it, and with an understanding of what's involved,

that we do need to have a differently structured arrangement for

collective bargaining in the public service than we do in the private

sector.

As I said earlier, the employer is different. The employer in the

public service does not have profit as his objective; he has service.

The private employer's primary reason for operating is profit, and he

seeks to attain that. His investment program is for profit at some time

in the future. There's no question about that at all. That's not so in

the public service. If a lockout takes place in the private sector, the

purpose of the lockout is for the employer to bring some economic

leverage against his employees, to get them to agree to his proposal

with respect to a collective agreement. If a strike takes place in the

private sector, the purpose is the reverse: the attempt on the part of

the employees, in the marketplace philosophy that this government

subscribes to, is to exert some leverage by saying: "We are going to

cut into your productive capacity, deny you, the employer, the

opportunity to produce and sell and thus earn income. It's our last

hope to get a collective agreement."

In the public service, if a lockout takes place by the government,

the ultimate employer who pays the bills is the person who experiences

the difficulty. If a strike takes place in the public service, or any

segment of it, it's the ultimate employer, the taxpayer, who sees the

difficulties. The immediate employer, the government, does not. It

might see some shortfall in income, say, if an income-producing segment

of the public service is locked out or on strike such as the ferry

service or the liquor stores. They are income-generating elements

within government. So by and large there is this difference. We need to

have, in my view, a different set of arrangements for collective

bargaining.

The development of collective bargaining has been slow and tortuous

and fraught with misery, both by employers and employees, both by

companies and unions, both by government and employees in the public

service. Even when they were called civil servants there was still

discontent because they didn't have any rights and didn't have any

position. And the growth of it has been fraught with trouble.

MS. SANFORD: And bloodshed.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, and tremendous bloodshed. I mentioned that

earlier. I'm not passing over the importance of that. That occurred,

and it may occur again. We have no way of knowing that. I'm not

forecasting or advocating anything. We have no way of knowing what

tensions may develop in the future. But this is the wrong way to go

about dealing with the desirability of establishing a structured

relationship of collective bargaining within the public service that is

suitable to the peculiarities of that employee-employer relationship.

You don't go about making the alteration by way of a bludgeon, by

way of the employer, who is also the lawmaker, saying: "I'm going to

take off my employer's coat and put on my lawmaker's coat, and I'm

going to decide unilaterally what system is going to prevail, so that

when I take off my lawmaker's coat and put on my employer's coat I'll

have it there to be able to deal with these people in the public

service." That is the wrong way to go about the development of

something as complex as this — complex because there were complexities

in its growth, complex because of the various factors and forces that

are involved throughout it.

[4:45]

We need to develop more than the unilateral bludgeoning approach

that's being proposed in this particular bill — the cooperative

approach, the sensible, rational, communicating approach to the

development of law. It isn't a one-sided activity. The government as

employer or lawmaker is not the sole participant. Thousands of people

in this province are employed in the public service, and they are

involved and will be affected. A much more decent and respectful way, I

submit, is for government — who is also the lawmaker, the arbitrator —

to invite the public employees directly or through their union, or

however they want to be represented in that, to sit down at a

conference to seek and find ways and means where you can arrive at

something mutually agreeable if at all possible. But if you don't try

that mutually agreeable approach, you're not going to accomplish it.

[ Page 2568 ]

Mr. Speaker, there was, some 2,500 years ago in China, a famous

general, Sun Tze or Sun Tzu, depending on how the pronunciation of that

name would have altered over the years, who wrote a volume called The Art of War ;

dealt with war in the sense of tribal or state wars — one with the

other — it dealt with human relationships. One of the expressions of

Sun Tzu that was fundamental to his approach where there are

conflicting interests.... I quote his words from memory; therefore they

may not be precisely accurate, but the essence is there. He said the

objective in war — whether with another state or internally,

politically within the court or something of that sort — is to win over

your opponent by capturing his heart. And you don't do that by

bludgeoning him into the ground. You don't do that by destroying his

sense of self-respect and self-esteem. You don't do that by the

one-sided bulldozer approach of saying: "Get out of the way. This is

the way it's going to be." You seek to win him over to your side by

winning his heart, by winning his conviction that both of you —

government and employees — are headed in the right direction, and are

headed in that direction as a result of a mutually acceptable and a

mutually developed course of action. Cooperation is what will get us

there. Cooperation is what will establish some peaceful relationships

in this province, not confrontation.

Unity of mind, of purpose, between government and its employees

insofar as the public service is concerned is what will develop a

conscience and self-esteem in the public service that will serve this

province for a long time to come if we start off doing it on the proper

base of mutual acceptance of each other's position and an attempt to

find a unified and mutually agreeable approach. This way will leave

misery, suffering and hard feelings, and while the government may have

its way, and have its day, it won't have a very acceptable future.

Now as I said at the beginning, I doubt that anything that I have to

say or my views about this are going to influence anybody on the other

side of the House. Its purpose maybe was not that so much, because this

chamber has come not to be a debating arena, where the cut and thrust

of debate and the ideas that one expresses may be influential, or where

one may be influenced by ideas expressed by the other side, and come to

change a point of view. That doesn't exist in this chamber. The debate

is one-sided, unfortunately. So I have no illusions that anything I

say, regardless of its merit or lack of merit, is going to influence

government. I needed to say it for my own sake, perhaps more than

anything.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I assume that normal

procedure at this time would be for the Provincial Secretary to close

debate. He will be in the chamber in a moment, Mr. Speaker, but in the

meantime I'd like to take my place to support second reading of Bill 2,

as not the draconian measures that have been described in this

Legislature over the last many, many hours of debate about this bill,

but rather as a tool with which the ministry and the government will be

allowed to manage its affairs in the most expeditious and efficient

manner — and fair — to the employees to whom we are responsible.

It's been very convenient for the members opposite to use all kinds

of extravagant language, calling the government various names, which I

wouldn't repeat in this Legislature, but which are rather misleading,

and certainly very insulting. As the member for North Peace River (Hon.

Mr. Brummet) commented in earlier debate, I believe on the hoist

motion, it is insulting for one group of people to indicate that

another group of people in a democratic society, in a democratic

Legislature, agree with the democratic process in some lesser degree

than that group opposite. We are very fortunate to live in a society in

which democracy is paramount. This Legislature, at most times, is a

good example of that. I believe in democracy, I believe in this

Legislature, and I believe in the opportunity that we're making

available to manage our affairs for the people of British Columbia in a

way in which they told us they wanted us to manage on May 5.

Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary will, of course, be outlining

many of the misconceptions that have been put forward in this debate

regarding what this bill really means, and what the opportunities will

be for fairness, for consultation, for cooperation, and for an orderly

and reasonable way in which the public service of this province is

managed.

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

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, it's been a long time coming.

Almost 27 hours ago I opened debate on this particular bill, and I've

been here consistently for the last 27 hours with the exception of a

dinner and a lunch break. That's more than I can say about the

opposition, because most of them were in bed last night. Those who

didn't sleep last night were sleeping this morning.

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

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

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

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

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will, but I would think that probably some

of the interjections might cease if the minister would speak to the

bill, as other members have done.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, in opening debate on this

particular bill, I outlined very fully the reasons for the amendment to

the Public Service Labour Relations Act. I know the members have had an

opportunity of reviewing my statements in opening the debate; therefore

I will attempt to be as brief as possible, but will respond to some of

the issues that have been raised by members opposite.

I have some great difficulty in responding to the speech made by the

second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), because I really couldn't

fathom what he was saying of substance or purport to this particular

piece of legislation.

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

[ Page 2569 ]

the minute the bill was introduced in the House, I communicated with

the B.C. Government Employees' Union and other affiliated public

service unions in British Columbia and invited them to my office to

discuss this piece of legislation plus another piece of legislation

which I am responsible for. I did get the unions into my office to

discuss.... I had hoped to discuss the legislation, but it appeared

to me that it was more a media event than a consultative process,

because the president of the B.C. Government Employees' Union came to

my office and read the three- or four-page brief, which I was prepared

to discuss with him as well as the legislation, to see whether the

legislation could be amended to be more acceptable to the B.C.

Government Employees' Union. However, those representatives of the

public service unions that came to my office way back in July weren't

prepared to discuss with me the substance of this legislation. They

immediately walked out after having read their brief; they weren't

prepared to consult. My response to that is that my door continues to

be open to the B.C. Government Employees' Union and other public

service unions here in the province,

I had a brief meeting here a day or two ago with representatives of

the B.C. Government Employees' Union. I met with them for one hour, and

that was in response to the open-door policy that I put in place from

the time the legislation was first introduced in this House. So to

suggest that there has been no consultation, that there hasn't been an

open-door policy, is to be ignorant of the facts.

The members opposite talked about my suggesting that the legislation

is unique. I did use that word in my opening statement on this

legislation. It is unique because it addresses specific legislation

dealing with the public service of British Columbia. There are other

provinces — and the national government as well — that have specific

legislation dealing with their public servants. I am saying that I was

appalled by some of the statements of the members last night and this

morning in which they suggested.... The member for North Island

(Mr. Gabelmann), the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), the member for

Comox (Ms. Sanford) and the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy)

indicated that really there was no need for this special legislation

for the public service of British Columbia. They felt that the Labour

Relations Act should be sufficient, that you don't need two pieces of

legislation, that they should be under the same rules in British

Columbia.

I listened very attentively to that point of view. The matter they

seem to forget is that the Public Service Labour Relations Act came

into being in 1973, when that particular party over there happened to

be government for that short period of time in the history of this

province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Short but disastrous.

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

They say that there is no need for the Public Service Labour

Relations Act even though they introduced the legislation in this House

and they all voted for it; now they are saying there is no need for it.

They have a split personality, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: North Island maybe voted against it, but the

members I talked about here — Alberni, Comox and Rossland-Trail — voted

for it. I believe North Island voted against it; I am talking about

those who are here. Then they go on to say that the legislation

essentially destroys collective bargaining in the public service.

That's absolute nonsense; it clarifies collective bargaining in the

public service.

[5:00]

They say it is undemocratic and is going to destroy democracy in British Columbia.

What a bunch of nonsense, Mr. Speaker! Then the member for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Lea) says, of all things, that pension matters should be negotiable. I don't

think he has read the Public Service Labour Relations Act as it was before and

as it is now. It essentially exempts pensions from being a bargainable item.

That was the legislation that you voted for, in the old days so many years ago

when you were Minister of Highways in British Columbia. Do you remember those

bad old days? You voted for that legislation, and now you are saying that you

are against it.

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

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

Now the member for Rossland-Trail talked about when the regulations

were introduced. "We wonder what the regulations will say." Well, there

is nothing in this legislation that suggests that there are going to be

regulations. I wish that member and some of the other members over

there would only read the legislation and be informed. Don't come up

here with erroneous facts about the legislation. There will be an

amendment to Bill 2, and that is because of the fact that we don't want

to violate the collective agreement, because we believe in the sanctity

of contracts.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a long debate, but I want to say that

essentially it is a simple bill. It is not as complicated and

convoluted and draconian as the members of the opposition might lead

you to believe. The bill really does two things. It clarifies those

matters intended to be rights of the Crown. It does no more and no

less; in that respect there is no change. Secondly, it exempts from

bargaining the authority of the Public Service Commission, and

rightfully so, because the Public Service Commission chairman is

answerable to the Legislature. He is not answerable to the government;

he is answerable to the Legislature. Why shouldn't his authority be

preserved?

We are saying that the right of the employer has been very

dramatically eroded in recent years through arbitration. The Labour

Relations Board is saying that the employer should have the right to

manage, and that is what this legislation addresses: the right to

manage; the right of the employer to determine scheduling of work, how

many employees will be working and what times they will go to work.

This legislation will allow the employer to determine when the

employees go to work. Isn't that the role of the employer? Are you

suggesting over there — I think I heard that; not in these words, but

nevertheless — that if the employer, the Crown, the provincial

government, suggests that it is necessary to have employees working at

9, the employees or the bargaining agent for the employees should be

able to say that they should go to work at 12? We say that the

employer, just like in the private

[ Page 2570 ]

sector, should have the right of determining the

schedule as to when employees go to work.

Interjections.

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

This legislation does not necessarily do away with flextime, as has

been suggested across the way. Flextime can be worked out between the

employer and the employee.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, flextime will continue to be there at

the option of and for efficiency on the part of the employer. Flextime

will continue. Flextime will continue to be available to the public

service of British Columbia; I am saying that to you. It will continue

to be there. There is no intention within the legislation to restrict

those significant negotiable matters such as hours of work, salary,

legislation really clarifies once and for all what the original intent

of the legislation was — what it was back in 1973, with slight

modifications.

I am appalled by the opposition, after having listened to so many

boring hours of repetition here since 2:30 p.m. yesterday afternoon.

They apparently don't want to hear from the minister. They want to

close debate; they keep telling me to press on and move second reading.