1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1983

Evening Sitting

[ Page

2459 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Mr. Blencoe –– 2459

Mr. Cocke –– 2460

Mr. Lea –– 2465

Mrs. Dailly –– 2469

Mr. Rose –– 2473

Mr. Nicolson –– 2478

Mr. Stupich –– 2481

Mr. Hanson –– 2486

On the amendment

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2503

Mr. Lockstead –– 2516

Mrs. Wallace –– 2523

Ms. Sanford –– 2526

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 2530

Mr. Lank –– 2531

Mr. Cocke –– 2532

Ms. Brown –– 2535

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1983

The House met at 8:05 p.m.

PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, before we withdrew to the various

dining-rooms, I was trying to indicate to the government that perhaps

they should go back to their statements earlier in the week that they

are interested in getting together with the various groups which are

asking the government to reconsider its legislation. We had thought

that the government, the Premier in particular, was beginning to see

that there was some room in this province for a few olive branches to

be offered.

AN HON. MEMBER: We haven't been offered one.

MR. BLENCOE: It's been offered. The various organizations

that feel dramatically affected by your legislation have indicated a

willingness to sit down and discuss, in a sane, sensible and

intelligent manner, some of your particular legislation. Obviously Bill

2 is part of that legislative package. Despite those indications that

the government appeared to be serious about discussing this with the

people to be dramatically affected by the legislation, those overtures

and olive branches were really quite meaningless. There was no

intention to reconsider or take a look at Bill 2, or to discuss it

Leaders of organizations feel that their rights and privileges which

had been collectively bargained, are not to be discussed in a

meaningful way.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I believe in second reading we

speak to the principle of the bill, and not to what might have

transpired either now or later.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we have already had what can best

be described as broad introductory remarks. At this point I must ask

the member to contain his remarks to the principle of the bill before

us.

MR. BLENCOE: But Mr. Speaker, I am indeed talking to....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, when the Chair asks a member to

address the principle of the bill, he is in a way admonishing the

member. And when the member turns around and says "I am," he is in fact

challenging the Chair.

MR. BLENCOE: I would never do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Neither one of us would want that, hon. member, so may we address the principle of the bill?

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, we had hoped there would be a tabling for

a short period of some of this legislation, particularly Bill 2, to give all

parties the opportunity to consult in a meaningful way. It's our feeling,

and I think the feeling of many people in the province of British Columbia,

that the time for that has come, after over three months of discussion on various

labour bills. Bill 2 is part of that. It's time for a little bit of sanity,

I think. We all know that when you're dealing with a very delicate issue

such as management and labour relations, sides will be taken and positions presented,

and misunderstandings will often become exaggerated. When that happens, the

time has come for all parties, if we believe we can still discuss with all the

various groups to be affected by legislation.... If we feel we can in a gentlemanly

way get together and try and work out our common problems, that would really

be the sensible thing to do.

We're not alone in asking for that kind of thing in terms of Bill 2,

in asking the Premier or whoever else to sit down with leaders and have

some meaningful dialogue. The progressive municipality of Delta very

recently, on October 4....

Delta council wants the provincial government to table its restraint

legislation for a cooling-off period while it consults with the groups

most affected. Delta council, of course, is involved in another piece

of legislation, and we all know....

AN HON. MEMBER: You weren't listening to them about that legislation; why are you listening to them now?

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: It would appear that Delta Council is finally

seeing the way, that with consultation and discussion oil problems

outside of these four walls here, maybe there could be some resolution

of our problems in the labour-management field. We've taken a long time

to establish things at the Labour Relations Board, a long time to

ensure that collective bargaining processes are fair and equitable and

both sides are fairly represented, and here is Delta council asking the

government to cool off. Delta council is probably the only municipality

in British Columbia that still supports this government; but even that

council is saying to table your package, including Bill 2, for a

cooling-off period, and consult with the groups most affected. Now

that's got to tell you something. I think they're right.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would

suggest that you call the new young member from Victoria — because he

has served on city council in Victoria he thinks he knows it all — back

to speak to the principle of the bill. Tell him that decisions made by

various councils throughout the province — he'll probably cover all of

them — are sort of irrelevant to the principle of the bill which is

before the Legislature. I suggest that you tell that young member that

he should not waste the taxpayers' money by continuing to speak in

irrelevant terms.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. It's

ironical indeed that the member from Peace River would get up on a

point of order and talk about irrelevancy — the member who has abused

this House more than anybody else. Mr. Speaker, the member is exactly

on the principle and the member for Peace River knows it. For 14 hours

that member filibustered this house on one bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member — for that matter, all members of

the House — I would have thought that after a dinner recess we would

come back prepared to partake of debate with the proper decorum. Only

one member has the floor.

[ Page 2460 ]

Referring to the point of order, I believe the hon. second member

for Victoria was about to develop an argument. There was in the Chair's

opinion a trace of relevancy, and I am sure that if we give him a few

moments he will quickly home in on Bill 2. Should he not do that, of

course the Chair would be prepared to call him to order.

Interjections.

[8:15]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, this member keeps interrupting.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. That goes for both sides of

the House. It is clear the hon. member is having some trouble

continuing debate because of disorderly conduct on both sides of the

floor. May we now continue on Bill 2.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, what I was trying to point out

before I was interrupted was that a very responsible elected local

council such as Delta has asked you to reconsider Bill 2 –– I think

it's important to record that they've asked you to reconsider your

legislative package, which of course includes Bill 2. Finally they have

seen the way, and recognize that the legislative package you have put

forward is not in the best interests of British Columbians. Even Delta

has recognized that. Even Don Bellamy has recognized that. Your own

Social Credit candidates have recognized that and are all jumping ship

like rats. They're all leaving you — fast. We've already named many of

them. If you were a candidate who didn't get elected, I'm sure you

would be saying the same thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one.

MR. BLENCOE: We've already named many of them. If you were a

candidate today and they got elected, I'm sure you'd be saying the same

thing, Mr. Member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, order, please. Might I request

the hon. second member for Victoria to refrain from partaking of debate

across the floor, and to direct his remarks to the Chair. If he does

that, I would be pleased to ensure decorum in the House.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, let's try to put a serious tone on

this particular issue. The real issue is the fact that we have a

government that is prepared to upset dramatically the orderly conduct

of the public service in British Columbia. It is prepared to destroy

what has taken years and years to establish, in terms of attracting

some of the most capable and most experienced people into that public

service. What you have decided to do is make the public servants in

British Columbia second- and third-class citizens in terms of what

other people expect in the labour field. That is a fact, and that has

been said on all sides. I don't think the public servant....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, we have so many government members

getting upset while we say those things. They protest so much that you

have to wonder.... Really, there is a strong inkling of reality in that

statement.

Mr. Speaker, I have already urged this government to consider really

seriously that rather than making war on the public service....

AN HON. MEMBER: Make love.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, why don't you try to work with people? Why

don't you try to consult people? Why don't you bring them in as

friends, in terms of trying to resolve the problems of British Columbia

— that is, the economic recession that currently plagues this province

— and say to those public servants: "Yes, we've got problems. How can

we help resolve them?" See them as partners in tho recovery program.

But what you've decided to do is to declare war, and that procedure

cannot help the province of British Columbia at all. Let's not forget

that those thousands of public servants deliver essential services in

this province; they carry out essential programs. If the taxpayer is to

get the best value for their dollar, you have to have high morale, you

have to have high productivity in the public service. I contend and our

party contends that the morale in the public service is zero and the

productivity is going to be virtually zero. You cannot tell people that

they are second- and third-class citizens and expect them to work hard,

particularly when many of them have given the best part of their lives

to this province in terms of service.

I really urge this government, particularly because, living in

Victoria and in this riding, knowing many of them personally and having

talked to them over the last few months.... There is deep, deep concern

and fear about what this government is doing, and it is not helping the

course or setting a new course in terms of economic recovery in this

province. Bill 2 is a major shift in policy. It is going to get you

into nothing but trouble. I urge this government, rather than

proceeding with it, to rethink, as has Delta council — it has finally

come to its senses — your course of action and consult and try to find

some resolution which is sane, and not crazy.

I hope the government will think about its actions, particularly if

it wishes the people of British Columbia to believe that it is serious

about consultation and finding compromises to our problems. Otherwise,

all your rhetoric about conciliation and olive branches and wishing to

discuss problems is meaningless and it is not to be believed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for New Westminster on Bill 2.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, there is a sound of surprise in the

House — surprise that more than two or three members of our party would

get up on a very destructive bill like this.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I watched you on TV tonight; you sure made a lot

of sense, Mr. Minister — great sense. You didn't make any to the 500 in

Ashcroft and Spences Bridge.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't lecture any member of the House.

MR. COCKE: I will lecture you or any other member that I like. Who the hell do you think you are?

[ Page

2461 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, might we have some order.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: You and Jack Munro went to the same language school.

MR. COCKE: That's right, and you're a preacher. Isn't that

marvellous, coming from that lovely little preacher, who is party to

this jackboot stuff that is going on in this province today. Your

Christian ethics just make me wonder. Don't talk about Jack Munro. He's

a decent human being. If I am categorized in his category, thank you

very much; it was a compliment.

Back to Bill 2.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You both learned from Fryer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Might the members on the government side of

the House show a little bit of restraint and allow the member for New

Westminster, who has the the floor, to get on with the debate.

MR. COCKE: I think what we're looking at tonight is the

destruction of an agreement, the total decapitation of an agreement. I

have listened to the arguments of the government, mostly from their

seats. Not very often do they get up and speak to their microphones and

put their words on the record of the House, but what they are

indicating is that there is a move afoot to put the public sector in

exactly the same position as the private sector. I ask you: would this

government or any other government have the audacity to stand up in

this Legislature and introduce a bill that would render null and void

an agreement between the private sector and its employees — that is,

Mac-Blo and the IWA?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Only Barrett had the audacity to do that when he ordered the TWA back to work.

MR. COCKE: There was no way that touched a collective

agreement. That member knows, and so does that very, very erudite House

Leader, that it was a 90-day cooling off period. Every time they try to

twist and turn, there's no way they can get around what they have done

to this agreement. It's not a 90-day cooling off period. That member

who just came back from Yugoslavia and had his lungs greased.... The

fact of the matter is that this is a piece of legislation that rips up

a collective agreement, rips it apart.

Here we are in the great free world, and what do we believe in in

the great free world? The sanctity of contract, We believe that a

contract between two parties, duly signed, is a contract with sanctity.

This contract is between the government, or the Public Service

Commission, and 45,000 employees. There are further contracts....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You are so bright. Why don't you get up and say your piece after I'm through?

This contract is not alone. There are further contracts....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: That member, who sits there and lectures from his

chair.... That member should be back again running that credit union up

in Penticton making it go broke as he is making the government go

broke. It would be far less harmful if he were up there than down here,

destroying things like this.

He asks a very interesting question. Would you find the clauses in

this contract in other labour contracts? Yes, you would. If you don't

know that, why don't you go out and do some homework, and then come

back and make those statements? Why doesn't he come back into the House

and make a speech, based on that very much in-depth kind of research

that he is noted for, and show us the difference between this contract

and the other contracts in the private sector? There is none. As a

matter of fact, there are many contracts in the private sector that are

far more encompassing than this contract....

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them.

MR. COCKE: As a matter of fact, I will give you one: FIR and the TWA.

AN HON. MEMBER: They get laid off from time to time.

[8:30]

MR. COCKE: There is, Mr. Speaker, in this contract, the right to lay off in exactly the same way that the....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: We have a third of our forest industry laid off

right now, and that minister has the audacity to make that kind of a

supercilious statement. Good heavens! Laid off with no recourse, as

there is in any other contract, with the provisions of seniority, with

the provisions of all that a normal, decent contract encompasses.

What this government wants is to take this and rip it up, start from

square one and render the public service — and not just the BCGEU but

the whole public service, representing 250,000 people serving the

public of British Columbia.... Mr. Speaker, I should not level this at

you — and I am certainly not levelling a charge — but I think you are,

more than most of your colleagues, familiar with the whole question of

collective bargaining and know, despite the fact that you were on the

management side, that the collective bargaining situation works. You

were kind of a tough guy. But that's fine — fair enough. That, at

least, is fair ball when there is an opportunity for one side to take

their position and the other side to take theirs. But once you resort

to statutes, once you resort to acts of the Legislature to do your

bargaining for you, then you have lost contact with freedom. I know

that is hard for you, Mr. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder),

to understand. But that is precisely what happens when you do what this

government has successfully done — providing they pass this bill.

Looking at their record, there is every likelihood that they might —

with closure, with all sorts of other devices.

I believe that when the Whip, who is now gone from the House, was

replying to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) in terms of

why make war and said, "What do you expect us to do? Make love?"....

[ Page 2462 ]

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: When you get through....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's your opinion.

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

took his seat. I was wondering, under those circumstances, whether you

would determine that he has completed his speech or lost his position

in the debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I certainly recognized the fact that the hon.

member did take his seat. I take it he lost his balance and was not

giving up his posture in debate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, lost his balance. What was he smoking?

MR. COCKE: Neither smoking nor drinking, but the fact of the matter is....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you wish to in fact discontinue your

speech, you may again retain your seat, but I expect you just

momentarily lost your balance.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I won't do it again. But I

am very tired of the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

jumping around, interrupting continuously in a vein that I find

contemptible. He doesn't understand what I am saying or he chooses not

to understand. Either way, it is a wonder that he would be appointed to

the executive council of this province.

I again say that to alienate the entire public service of the

province, whether or not the polls tell one that it is a good idea,

will not pay off in the long run. In the long run, destroying a

contract, destroying an agreement such as this by legislation, is about

as far as you can go in bullying tactics. Now we've seen a great many

of those tactics in the last few years, and we've seen a rendition in

the last few months that would boggle one's mind. That is exactly what

has happened.

I would like to suggest that part of the reason for ripping up this

contract is to permit the government an opportunity to go outside the

public service to get the work done that they wish done. You and I both

know that there is very little fat in the system any more. Attrition

has been working in this province for the last three years that I know

of. Attrition to this extent.... When a worker retires, quits or has

some other reason to leave, that worker is not replaced. We see a

reduction in health care in terms of the number of employees out there

in the public health sector. We see a reduction in virtually every

other government service in this province — and a major reduction —

over the past two or three years. We have seen probably the best

example of what not to do — in 1977, I believe it was — when the

government decided to get right out of public service to themselves.

What they did at that time was take a whole group of public service

employees, declare them redundant and build a Crown corporation called

BCBC. Interesting, isn't it? B.C. Buildings Corporation has cost us

infinitely more, in both ongoing, workaday costs and capital costs,

than what we would have enjoyed had we left the whole thing where it

was.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're absolutely wrong.

MR. COCKE: Absolutely right. The reason the minister can say

that with some authority is that they no longer have to account for

those dollars. We see in individual areas — I see it, for example, in

New Westminster; I see it here in Victoria — the increase in cost of

work done for the government just because of the fact they went that

way. Not only that, we have certainly increased the capital costs in

terms of interest and so on. At first they decided they would do it

because they wanted to duck out of acknowledging debt. They've gone on

doing it, and they justified it by saying it is not as costly. Look,

Mr. Speaker, at the costs per ministry for the services that were

rendered before.... Look at those costs now — add them up and compare

them with any kind of inflation factor you want to, and you will find

that they are infinitely more.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, for goodness' sake! On the periphery of this,

so that.... I can't deal, naturally, with the wages, but I can deal

with this: in the first year rents went up one third for all government

offices. You know it, I know it. So did the cost of every one of the

jobs that were done for government service. Read your own report

sometime and find out how much you are paying for BCBC. It is going to

curl what little hair you have left.

Public service should stay public, and the reason it should stay public is that it is less costly.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not true.

MR. COCKE: Not true? It is less costly. Every jurisdiction....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Isn't it interesting, Mr. Speaker? He says: "Speak

to the bill." I'm saying that every jurisdiction that has tried it has

found....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Because what Bill 2 does is provide that avenue to privatize more and more of the public sector.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I am arguing against contracting out. That is what

you've been doing. You've destroyed the agreement, therefore you can

contract out.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Where is it in the bill?

MR. COCKE: What do you mean, where does it say it? It is

implicit in it, Mr. Speaker. He knows it, I know it, you know it and

everybody else in here knows it.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: BCBC is all contracting out. BCBC contracts out. You control BCBC with your little manikins that run it for you.

[ Page 2463 ]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The cost of service increases. How do we know

that? Evidence from every jurisdiction that has reported faithfully on

this subject has told us that. I have item after item telling me that

it didn't work in California, telling me that the whole American

experiment didn't work, telling me that contracting out does not reduce

costs, it increases them. Wherever it's been tried, it has failed. Mr.

Speaker, that is what we're trying to talk about tonight,

But beyond that whole question of contracting out, is there any

reason why it's important to a government to say to their employees:

"We want you in a lesser position than any other bargaining unit in the

province — a lesser position by far than any other union or group of

workers in the province, outside of those who are working in the

non-union sector"?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That is true, Mr. Minister, and that's the reason

you're doing it. The reason you're bringing in Bill 2 is to provide the

people that you found in your polls....

They were people who did not have the great love, maybe, of the

entire populace. Having seen that, this government decided to destroy

this agreement. I'm not going to go through.... I'm sure some of my

colleagues have. There is page after page after page with yellow lines

in it. Those yellow lines....

[8:45]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The yellow lines were put there by our research in consultation with us. Reading your bill, and reading the agreement....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: All right! Let's do the first yellow line. Let's

go right to the beginning. And I want the minister to say "true" or

"false." Here is a very interesting yellow line: "The general secretary

of the union, or his or her designate, may sit as an observer in a

selection panel for positions in the public service bargaining unit.

The observer shall be a disinterested party. This clause shall not

apply to excluded positions." True or false?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That, of course, is a rhetorical question, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Of course it's a rhetorical question.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "Sit down and I'll answer it." Sure, you'd like to close debate, wouldn't you? You're so used to closure. True or false?

HON. MR. HEWITT: This isn't question period. Get on with your debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May I have order, please. We will not have a

question posed across the floor. You will refrain from entering into

debate. I would ask the hon. members on the opposite side to refrain

from interjecting. Would the hon. member for New Westminster return to

Bill 2, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what he was calling

for across the floor. He said: "You know it was false. Who put in the

yellow lines?" and so on — the first one. I can go right through the

book and he would give me exactly the same answer: "Sit down and I will

answer." Sit down. Sure. He would close debate. That's what this is all

about.

Mr. Speaker, when you go down this list.... "No collective agreement

shall effect...." And then you go into all of those areas. You find

that you have taken this agreement and ripped it to absolute shreds.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It's very interesting. We listened to his words

this afternoon and, incidentally, we asked for a copy of those words

and were kindly advised that we couldn't have a copy. Beyond that....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You see. Mr. Speaker? Just so that everybody

understands and to put this on the record, we have not had a copy of

the Blues in here since September 20.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Since September 20. There's a copy that you've got now.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Thank you. I'll pass that on to my colleagues. That's a very original situation. Look at them; those shelves are empty.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Why would I go to the Speaker and ask him if he's seen a copy of the Blues? More irrelevancies from from over there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, since you have raised that

issue, I think that the Speaker should clarify that. That particular

copy came from the back. You might return that. Thank you. They are now

available in the House. The Speaker ruled that because of the obvious

amount of work that Hansard had to cope with, the Blues were

done away with for some period of time. They have now been reinstituted

and they are available commencing with this afternoon's sitting.

MR. COCKE: Good. We appreciate that, believe me, because it

is kind of nice to be able to sit down and look at what the minister

said. We had no idea, incidentally, that they were available this

afternoon.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, standing order 10 just to

remind Mr. Speaker — that he shall not take

part in any debate before

the House.

[ Page 2464 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I am well aware of standing

order 10. But I believe, as I prefaced my remarks, that I clarified the

situation which had been originated by a ruling of the Speaker, and I

thought it would be proper for the House to be aware of what has

transpired because of that ruling.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We appreciate it.

I would like to refer to a couple of areas with respect to the whole

question of contracting out, and I believe that that is partly what

this is aimed at. I believe that when you destroy a collective

agreement, then your objective is to do as much contracting out as you

can. Let me quote from a document I have before me. It says here:

"Numerous state government audits of state contracts have found

repeated instances of imprecise specification of contract provisions,

non-competitive bidding...."

HON. MR. CHABOT: Contracting out is not part of the legislation. If you want me to bring an amendment in, I will.

MR. COCKE: I want you to bring an amendment in.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That is not my job.

MR. COCKE: I want you to bring an amendment in on contracting

out, and I will cease debate on that part of the issue. If you can say,

right now, on a point of order or in any other way.... If you can

communicate to the opposition that as a result of this there will be no

contracting out, we will not only appreciate it....

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm not saying that.

MR. COCKE: Oh, well, that's interesting.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm just saying that contracting out is not part of this legislation.

MR. COCKE: Of course it is not written into the legislation.

What the legislation does is make that possible If you destroy an

agreement, then you make contracting out not only possible, but with

this government probable; as a matter of fact, I would say almost

mandatory. I can't understand that minister — or maybe I can. The fact

of the matter is that he likes to throw as much sand into the gears as

he possibly can. This bill is all about contracting out.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not true.

MR. COCKE: This bill is all about sending the public service

to the lowest dimension that one can find in this province, beyond

McDonald's Hamburgers. This piece of legislation is to put the public

service behind any other workers in the province, other than those

outside the organized sector.

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

is talking about an issue that is not contained within this

legislation. The issue of contracting out is not present in this

legislation, in these amendments put forward here. If the member wants

to persist with his debate on contracting out, I could readily put

together an amendment that will bring in the question of contracting

out — so that contracting out can take place. If he wants to continue

with his debate on that issue, I will be glad to bring it in to make

his debate relevant.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Inasmuch as the bill refers to items that

will be included in a collective agreement and inasmuch as there is no

provision in the present collective agreement....

MR. STUPICH: Not inclusion, exclusion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry. It provides for exclusions, and

inasmuch as it does not specifically exclude contracting out and

inasmuch as the present agreement does not refer to it, I would agree

with the hon. minister. The bill does not cover the issue of

contracting out and hence the discussion on it, I would conclude, is

out of order. But before I make a formal ruling, the Chair recognizes

the member for Prince Rupert on the same point of order.

MR. LEA: I just wanted to catch you before you made a ruling.

We are speaking about the broad principles in second reading, as I am

sure Mr. Speaker will agree, and if the member for New Westminster sees

that the broad principle of this bill will bring about contracting out,

in his opinion, then I would suggest that that is absolutely relevant

and permissible to debate. You can't confine debate on second reading,

when you are talking about broad principle, to what is here word by

word. What we are talking about is what will happen if the bill passes,

and that is contracting out. If the member believes that contracting

out will come about by the principles of this bill, then it's purely

relevant to the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I believe the member wished to comment on the point of order.

MR. COCKE: No, Mr. Speaker. I think I'll continue my remarks and you'll see how relevant I am with respect to this whole question.

If the minister wants to amend this

section of the bill, then fair

enough. But I will read you the portion of the bill that I see as

giving the minister, the Public Service Commission and his and their

minions the very power that I'm suggesting. Mr. Speaker, what does it

say under 13(l)(c)? "...the organization, establishment and

administration of the ministries and branches of government, including

the right of the government to establish and eliminate positions" —

fair enough — "to assign duties to positions, to establish work

scheduling and to determine programs and services" — and here it is —

"and the method of their delivery." Mr. Speaker, if that isn't clear to

any thinking person in this province....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're wrong.

MR. COCKE: You know, they said we were wrong when in his

first monumental piece of legislation "fire without cause" was there.

That was just a little bit too evident. This is evidence enough for me.

In any event, when you can an agreement....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I may, hon. member, just to answer the

point of order that was raised, I see the position you are taking on

that clause, and although I'm sure it's open

[ Page 2465 ]

to

interpretation, I will entertain your

interpretation and agree that it may well be within the broad principles of debate.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Fair enough. Very good.

The whole question, I believe, goes back.... As I said at the

outset, I would like to read just a couple of little excerpts from some

documentation we have: "Numerous state government audits of state

contracts have found" — and listen to this very carefully, because

you're going to be in this position — "repeated instances of imprecise

specification of contract provisions, non-competitive bidding even when

required by law" — we've seen a little hint of that around here — "and

poor monitoring. This in turn has led to services required by the

contract not being provided or being provided at a greatly inflated

cost."

So let's look at the experience of some states. Would you like to

listen to them? In a 1978 study in Minnesota, the task force on waste

and mismanagement reported.... I could say it in a few words: a

disaster. I'm not going to go through all the discussion here. If the

minister would like to hear it, I could refer him to the documentation.

There have been very few areas where there has been any kind of support

for this kind of situation after it has come to flower. The

conversations have gone over into the state of Illinois. After four

years in that state, the state still cannot identify who is receiving

consultation contracts, let alone whether they are needed in specific

cases or whether they have been properly drawn, or whether the services

contracted have actually been provided. You see, that is the danger.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I can recall vividly that in virtually every

community in this province we had public servants out caring for public

property — I'm talking about B.C. property — almost taking a personal

proprietary care of that property because they felt very much a part of

it. We dumped them and set up BCBC. And in dumping that group of valued

public servants, what did we do?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "We absorbed them into BCBC." Some of them; many

of them not. But that's neither here nor there. What happened was that

that sort of proprietary interest in the provincial government's lot

was lost — proprietary interest in what they considered to be part of

their own. That, in my opinion, is what we can lose.

[9:00]

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to go any further on this. I'm sure that

in the course of the next several minutes of debate others of my

colleagues, and maybe even some of the government members, are going to

admonish the minister: for crying out loud, get off this course. But

what I want to do now, just for the closing minutes, because I see my

time is virtually up, is not get down on my bended knee, but just ask

the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, for heaven's sake to see some

sense in what he's doing. I want to suggest to the minister that the

way to peace and decent human relations, to a better and stronger

province, is through trust. Oh, sure, there's got to be tough

bargaining. I made reference to the Speaker presently in the chair, a

tough bargainer, and there's nothing wrong with that. Sure, some people

get angry, but the fact of the matter is that tough bargaining is one

thing, but destroying collective agreements is something entirely

different. When you do it with the muscle of government, it's indecent

and wrong. It engenders a spirit of distrust for now and forevermore.

Sure, public servants are vulnerable. Of course they are. People get

angry when they wait for their car to be tested, a fishing licence or a

bottle of booze or what have-you. They're getting equally angry now in

banks. Isn't that interesting? I was 25 minutes in a lineup the other

day to cash a cheque. Imagine that. It was almost like being in a

government office — that shortage of staff.

If this government wants to engender trust, please don't destroy this or any other agreement.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I think that on both sides of the House

we would agree that this is a serious piece of legislation. It is one

that does take a collective agreement between management and employees

and changes it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I'm not sure, Mr. Minister, and I'm not sure whether that's germane to the discussion.

Mr. Speaker, if you knew anything about collective agreements you'd

know that they normally carry on under the old collective agreement

until the new one is in place.

This piece of legislation does a number of things, I think probably

the most damaging thing that it could do is to bring around a system of

patronage. One of the Rhodes scholars at Oxford did his thesis on the

British civil service. I'll readjust one short passage where he made

the observation that patronage is the worst form of bribery. He says it

is the worst form of bribery because of the incessant demands of

officeseekers and the contemptible meanness and petty irritants

attendant on a distribution of favours. He said that's intolerable.

MR. R. FRASER: You should read that in Ottawa.

MR. LEA: You could read it almost anywhere, Mr. Member.

First of all, I think we should decipher the difference between

patronage and appointments by government of people who are appointed by

order-in-council to do tasks at the senior level of government, because

there is a difference. For instance, I think it's perfectly permissible

for governments to appoint senior civil servants who are at least in

agreement with the direction that government is going to go. Without

that kind of agreement between senior civil servants close to the

ministries it becomes almost impossible to carry out a mandate that any

political party receives from the public. But patronage is a different

thing altogether. Patronage is something that goes right to the very

core of a civil service, and it can destroy not only the civil service

but the people who work within the system. Therefore I agree with the

thesis on the British public service that patronage is the worst form

of bribery, because it does do a lot of damage, other than the fact

that the patronage system itself is wrong.

I would think that the worst and most intolerable part of this bill

is that it takes us backward in time. What it does is take away from a

cooperative approach to management. I don't think it really matters

these days if you take a business course in management for the public

area or for the private

[ Page 2466 ]

area; one of the principles that's taught in all

business courses these days is that you have a better chance of

reaching a goal if all of the people working in the system have some

say in establishing what the goals are and in establishing the methods

of reaching those goals. If you can involve people in the system,

consult with them and accept good ideas from the people who work in the

system, regardless of the position they hold in the system, then the

opportunity of success through cooperation and the productivity that

can be realized from cooperation and consultation are well worth the

effort. It has been proven time and time again to be one of the best

management tools that you can employ: that is, to get the workers

themselves within a system to help you set those goals and help you to

reach those goals through cooperation. Mr. Speaker, I think you will

find that if people do help set those goals, they will be much more

willing, more efficient, more cheerful and more cooperative in trying

to reach those goals.

To me, the worst part of this piece of legislation is that there was

in the collective agreement a modicum of the kind of approach I've been

talking about. Those are the things that have been attacked most

viciously by this piece of legislation. The consultation is missing;

therefore all of the rest will go missing. Cooperation, productivity

and efficiency will all go missing. Probably the reason that government

sees it this way is that most of the members of government — not the

minister who entered this, I know — are people who have worked neither

as employees with a collective agreement nor in management with a

collective agreement. Most government members are from the small

business sector or are professionals who have worked in areas where

collective agreements have not been the order of the day. So it is

understandable, I think, that they would have some lack of knowledge

and experience in how it works.

Whether I worked on the management side with a collective agreement

— and I have — or as an employee with an agreement, which I have, I

found that in many cases the collective agreement helped, because

benchmarks had been established and everyone knew what they were. I

also found out that 95 percent of the time a collective agreement is

not needed even if it's in place. Normally things work on a much

different kind of relationship than that. Normally there's a human

relationship between employer and employee. Usually the collective

agreement is not needed, but every once in a while you will run across

an employee who will not cooperate or go along with management in any

way. At that point management finds it very useful to have procedures

that can be followed laid out in a contractual form between management

and the workers in order to carry out management duties. We call them

labour agreements, but they are not labour agreements; they are

agreements between management and labour, and therefore they are

labour-management agreements, which are negotiated freely and signed by

both parties. All too often in our society we refer to them as labour

agreements, labour problems or labour negotiations, when in fact there

are two parties. I think we would be more accurate and probably a

little more helpful in the long run if we'd always refer to them as a

two-way street. There are two parties involved who have agreed, after

collective negotiation, on what that contract is going to say.

This piece of legislation takes away the ability of the worker to

sit down with management, under a structured situation that has also

been agreed to, and say: "Okay, what are we going to do about our

pensions?"

Section 13(l)(

b) of the act says that no longer will the

collective agreement be in force or in the future will it be a matter

for negotiation in regard to pensions and the Pension Act. Well,

pensions are an important part of all of our lives. It's incumbent on

any employer to sit down and negotiate with the employees on the

benefits in terms of the pensions that are going to be available. Where

the money is going to be invested is also very important. We know that

for years in this province the sole discretion of the investment of

pension money paid by municipal and all government employees was with

the employer, the government, We also know that over the years when the

governments borrowed that money they called it "inside financing,"

which meant that the pension funds were borrowed by the government or

by one of the government Crown corporations or agencies. For years

those pension funds which were paid into by the employees were loaned

back to the government at below market rate — an unfair practice.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Are you saying that pensions should be negotiable?

MR. LEA: I think they should.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: That's not true. They were not included, but they

were not excluded. That is not something that was taken out after it

was there. A little bit earlier, when my colleague for New Westminster

was talking about the sanctity of contract, the hon. House Leader (Hon.

Mr. Gardom) from the other side said: "What about the PNE?" Quite

frankly, when I look back on that, an action that I was part of when we

were in government, I don't feel too good about it. It was a contract,

and I think maybe we should have allowed it to live, because there is

such a thing as sanctity of contract, and if you take that sanctity of

contract away you are tampering with some trust in society. People

won't be as trustful in the future entering agreements and contracts if

they see governments, above all else, breaking agreements. We have it

here again. We did it with the PNE. I would hope that we could learn

from our experiences. There is no other way, in my opinion, that you

can learn. We don't seem to learn from others. I remember the debate in

this House during the time of the breaking of the PNE contract. I

suppose I could have gone to Hansard and I could have looked up

the remarks from all of the members on the opposite side who were here

at the time. I could bring in quote after quote after quote about

"sanctity of contract" coming from the Social Credit members when they

were on this side of the House and we were government.

[9:15]

What I am saying is that this side of the House at that time, I think, had

a point to make. I think maybe we should have listened. But because we didn't,

that is no reason that this government shouldn't listen today to what we

are saying now. We experienced it, but I think it is a danger to society when

you deliberately set aside duly negotiated contracts between two parties in

a democratic society, because once that contractual arrangement breaks down,

most of our commercial aspects of our society will break down. What do we say

when somebody in the private sector comes to us and there has been a breach

of contract between two members of the private sector? What do we as legislators

say to them? "Oh, we are upset — it is wrong; not very easy"? Can

we say that if we vote yes to this legislation? It would be hard for us because

[ Page 2467 ]

our PNE experience, so then there would be both

parties in the same boat. I think that throws us into disrespect and I

think it throws contracts into disrespect. Trust is out the window.

When it comes right down to it, our whole society is based on trust.

Even contracts themselves can be broken once trust disappears out the

window. This kind of legislation is an attack on trust in a democratic

society. For that reason alone, I think all members of the House should

oppose it. Surely there is another way to achieve the same purpose.

If I understood the Premier correctly last week, he said that they

were looking for another way to achieve the same purpose, but I have

not seen any attempt by the government other than the words last week

by the Premier. The actions since that time have been exactly the same

as they were before the Premier made the statement.

No say in pensions. Mr. Speaker, someone who worked with my dad in

the Trail smelters for 30 years gets a pension of under $200 a month.

It's a crime, in today's world, to spend 30 years in the lead furnaces

in a Trail smelter and end up with a pension under $200 a month.

What else is broken in this contract? What else are we going to see

in the future? One of the things is that the employee is no longer

going to have a say about job descriptions, the organization,

establishment and administration of ministries and branches of

government, including the right of the government to establish and

eliminate positions and to assign duties and positions. Again, I don't

think you can take a management course in today's world, whether you

are taking a management course for the public or the private sector,

where that management course doesn't say that the only way that you can

have a cohesive, coordinated, cooperative force is if everybody knows

exactly where they stand in the system and where their neighbours in

that system stand — where that authority begins, not only yours but

your supervisors, so that everyone has a clear view of the duties of

everyone in the system, where their jurisdiction begins and where it

ends. What better way to work out those kinds of arrangements than

sitting down — the boss and the worker, management and the employee —

and establishing the parameters, establishing it through negotiation,

because once again, if it was done that way, your opportunities for

success will be enhanced.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I've just had a ridiculous suggestion from across

the floor: do I want 35,000 people to sit down with management and work

it out? No, nor do I want — whatever it is — the 10,000 managers to sit

down with the 35,000 people. It's a ridiculous suggestion, and I guess

it hints at the member's regard for me and my brains, because to

suggest that I would be making that suggestion would be ludicrous.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No, it's done through representation. It's done through

representation from management and representation from the workers. As a matter

of fact, that's how it has been done. So once again, what we're seeing

here, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, is an erosion of the cooperative spirit, an

erosion of consultation. Finally, what you're going to get is a workforce

that will be disgruntled, won't know where they stand and will have no trust

in agreements. And out of that, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that you will

not get better productivity; you will get exactly the opposite.

Today I had occasion to go into the motor vehicle place over here on

Menzies Street. I walked in there, and there was a lineup. It would

build up and slow down, but I noticed that as there would be a few

people waiting, one of the supervisors at the back would come out and

take the wicket for a few minutes. There seemed to be a good rapport

between the manager of that

section and the employees. I can tell you

another thing: I didn't see any slacking off. I saw people doing their

jobs cheerfully, greeting the public cheerfully, and I suggest to you

that most of the time that's the way it works. We all know of the

exceptions, and to prove our arguments we always use the exceptions,

and they're always there, especially in big organizations where there

is bureaucracy. But if we want cheerfulness, if we want to be served by

a public service that is cheerful, energetic, efficient and productive,

then we have to include them in defining — as I said earlier — the

goals and the way to reach those goals. If we don't do that, we aren't

going to get it.

It's happened to me. We go in to deal with a civil servant and all

of a sudden we find that the answer is no. In fact, we wonder why the

answer is no so often when it doesn't seem that there would be very

much problem to say yes. I haven't encountered that so much in the last

few years since the employees have had a say in the collective

agreement and in negotiating terms of reference. But years ago when the

employees had no say, I think you got "no" more often. I think it came

from the fact that it was the only power they felt they had; to say yes

was no power. To say no at least was some vestige of power, that you

had some say in something, that you had some authority over your own

life.

Mr. Speaker, I say that the civil servants.... I hate to use those

words — I hate to say that they're servants. I slip into it. They are

public employees. I suppose it'll take a few years of getting used to

that phrase as opposed to "public servant" before I'll say it every

time. I really don't like the term "public servant." They are people

who do a job of work for the public for pay.

Another thing that I found when I was part of government and I must

say, to my surprise.... I was a minister of an on-line department.

Highways could be more like a construction company in the private

sector than a lot of other ministries which just regulate; there was

actually something tangible at the end of the day in the Ministry of

Highways. But I can honestly say that when I took that ministry over I

expected to find slackers; I expected to find all of the things we hear

about the public service, because I had been conditioned also. I didn't

find it. I found a senior staff who were competent, willing and

cooperative. I found middle management to be good. I found them

frustrated, and I'd like for a moment to deal with why I think some of

that frustration was there. The Social Credit like to say that we took

over a smooth administration. I'd like to tell you one thing that I

found. There were about four regions at the time and 34 districts. That

very efficient private enterprise government administration that we

took over from.... Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that each one of those

districts wasn't even in the budget — there was no budgeted item for

equipment? I found some districts that had six graders and needed

three, and in the next district exactly the opposite. The guy who had

the three extra graders wouldn't give them up for whatever reason, and

the guy next door couldn't get any. So we did a very simple thing. We

started budgeting them and charging them

[ Page 2468 ]

for that equipment. — The people who had extra

equipment dropped it like a hot potato and those who needed equipment

got it. Do you know how we arrived at that solution, Mr. Speaker? We

arrived at it by talking with those managers and consulting with them,

by making them feel part of the team and worthwhile as human beings in

the workplace.

I'm a strong advocate of industrial democracy. We have watched it

work in two economies in our recent history: in West Germany and in

Japan. As a matter of fact, the Premier himself, when we were having

dinner with Mr. Schmidt of West Germany at Government House one night,

said: "Maybe we should go to Germany and find out how they do it." It's

true. I don't think we can adopt all of the West German ideas into our

system of industrial democracy, nor do I believe that we can bring all

the ideas from Japan over here and do that either. But it's time....

In the throne speech itself this government asked for all sectors of

the economy to cooperate and consult with one another, and to work for

a common goal through cooperation. That was said time and time again

during the throne speech. How can they ask the society that we live in

to do that when we see that the first thing they do is take away the

very measures that allow for consultation and cooperation in dealing

with their own employees? We know from dealing with our own children

that you learn from example, as opposed to lectures. What we are seeing

here is an example of a government not doing what they preach nor what

they've asked others to do. I believe they are going down the wrong

path if they think they can do one thing with their own employees and

ask other segments of society to work cooperatively to reach a common

goal, even if that common goal is one of economic recovery.

This bill is going to be damaging to the province and the taxpayers

of this province because, in my opinion, it will cost them more in the

long run. You don't save money by having a surly, uncooperative,

disgruntled workforce working for the public. You only have that when

you treat others with respect for their ability to think, taking into

consideration their experience in life itself and at the workplace.

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

This piece of legislation should not pass, because it is in direct

contradiction to the principles laid out in the throne speech that we

heard here not that many months ago. How can the government bring in a

piece of legislation that contradicts the throne speech? The throne

speech is not legislation but what it does is set the tone. It says:

"Here is the thrust of government; here's what we intend to do until we

have another throne speech." And all through that throne speech the

word "cooperation" was the hallmark: a cooperative society. If we're

expecting the labour force, management and government in this province

to form itself into a tripartite organization, and if we're expecting

cooperation at those levels, how can we point our finger at them and

say, "Would you please do it?" when they can point their finger back at

us and say: "You don't. You work against the spirit of cooperation. In

fact, you brought in legislation that does away with it."

[9:30]

Not only is this bill bad enough in itself, but I think it's one that no

one likes to see because it's retroactive. It takes a contract and doesn't

say: "From now on the terms are going to be different." It says: "From

now — past — the things that were agreed to will be taken away." In effect,

it is retroactive legislation. I am surprised that the minister who brought

this bill in did so. Not only was he at one point the Minister of Labour, but

also he is a guy who knows what the collective agreement is all about. He didn't

come to us out of the Ivy League. He didn't come to us out of academia.

The minister who brought in this bill is a worker who had to work in the workplace

with a collective agreement, both in management and as an employee.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: He may not have worked, but he had a job. It's

surprising to me that this minister, with all his years of experience

working with collective agreements in both government and the private

sector, would be the one. I would think the minister responsible for

the civil service would not only fight against this legislation in

cabinet and in caucus, but would as a matter of principle refuse to

bring it into this Legislature. I would be interested in hearing, when

the minister is summing up — he didn't mention it when he opened the

debate and moved second reading — the history that brought this

minister to the point where he would forsake those years of experience

and training to bring in this bill. I think he has an obligation to

tell us how this bill is going to work to bring about better

consultation, conciliation and cooperation. I think the obligation is

there, Mr. Speaker. I cannot see how what I have been saying tonight

can fall on deaf ears. I don't think I've been without common sense in

discussing this legislation. I have tried to deal with it reasonably.

I have also pointed out that nobody is perfect. We made mistakes

when we were in government and we paid for them. Probably worse is that

other people paid for them too. This government is not perfect either.

There are no absolutes in this life, and for the government to feel

they are absolutely correct in doing this I think would be a mistake,

first of all because they will harm themselves. I predict that this

piece of legislation will hurt the government in terms of its public

image, and therefore will hurt the government in terms of votes. I only

mention that first because I know how dear votes are to we politicians.

Often you can get through to a politician by mentioning vote counts as

opposed to principles.

But it is not only going to hurt the government; it is going to hurt

the people who pay the bills, the people the government is so fond of

talking about — the taxpayer — and it is going to hurt the taxpayer in

different ways. One very important way is that it is going to cost more

money in the long run, because any piece of legislation that will take

away from productivity will finally hurt the taxpayer in the

pocketbook. But it is going to hurt the citizen in another way: in the

kind of services they get and in the attitude they run into when

dealing with public employees.

This bill is destructive, in my opinion, to the democratic process,

destructive to the democratic fibre of this province and therefore

should be voted against. In fact, I think this bill is so important

that it is incumbent upon members of the opposite side to take their

place and with serious debate tell me why the remarks made by the

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) in terms of contracting out are

not applicable to the bill.

Interjection.

[ Page 2469 ]

MR. LEA: I would like to hear it. As I said, nobody is

absolutely perfect. We are not on this side, that's for sure. I think

it is incumbent upon the members of this Legislature who are going to

vote for this bill to answer the charges that I am making. If they

can't, what price democracy? If this bill will do to society what I

believe it will do, then it is worthwhile being here until 1989 or 1988

before we pass.

Why are we in a hurry to destroy? Why are we in such a hurry to do

something that has no immediate need even from the government's point

of view? Why does the government need this piece of legislation? Just

exactly what is it? There is no problem with laying public employees

off; there are provisions for that. And if there were no provisions for

that, it's my information that the British Columbia Government

Employees' Union has said they will negotiate it if that's the problem;

they will negotiate an orderly layoff procedure based on seniority,

keeping in mind the program needs and the needs of the public in terms

of those programs. They are willing to sit down, willing to talk about

it, willing to consult. They are willing to negotiate and willing to

cooperate.

To slap them in the face and say you don't want that cooperation,

that they are not worthy of consulting and you don't want their

experience, either life experience or work experience, is the maximum

insult you can put at the doorstep of any citizen in a free society. We

are all different, thank God, but we are all equal. That is what makes

this society and every democratic society so great: the fact that we

can be different and at the same time equal; the fact that we can be

different and respect the other person for that difference. But to

start not talking to one another, and ordering people around by

legislation, is wrong. Sure, there's a time when a government has to be

tough; everyone admits that. But that should always be the last resort

of any government. Government's real role is to be creative, to be a

catalyst, to be a facilitator; and this piece of legislation misses on

all counts.

Again you have to ask yourself why a government would be determined

to do what is going to happen if this piece of legislation passes.

You're only left with one conclusion: that somehow or other they see it

in the short term as enhancing themselves to the voting public. We can

all read polls, and we've all taken them. We know that in today's

society it is very unpopular to be a public employee, very unpopular to

be a trade unionist. When you're both a public employee and a trade

unionist, that's a double whammy, and it's not right for a government

to take advantage of uninformed bigotry. That's what I think this bill

does: it takes advantage of an uninformed

section of our population.

That is wrong. It is not too late. If the Premier was serious last week

and wants to change the course of this government away from

confrontation to cooperation, then this piece of legislation will not

pass.

In conclusion, I make the plea, once again, for the government

members who intend to vote for this bill — those on the government

benches or those government supporters in the back bench — to get up

and take their place in debate, and tell us why they see this bill as

something that will be healthy for British Columbia, something that

will be good and will bring around cooperation and peace in British

Columbia, because above all else we need peace. Mr. Speaker, remember

what this parliament and the parliament of Canada is all about: peace,

order and good government. This bill will bring about no peace. It will

bring about disorder, and it will make the government a bad government.

MR. KEMPF: Certainly I would stand in my place and speak in

favour of, and in fact vote for, Bill 2, but that is not my intent in

taking my place at this time. I would ask leave of the House to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery with us this evening are three

lovely ladies from Victoria, who vehemently support Social Credit in

Victoria — all three of them. They are: Sharrone Douglas, Lorraine

Frances, and the lady of my life, Norma Witter. I would ask the House

to make them welcome.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I take my place in this debate on

the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1983. Although I

enjoyed hearing the introduction made by the member for Omineca, I

regret that he only made an introduction. I was really hoping he would

stand up and take his place in this debate. Are you prepared to?

MR. KEMPF: Do you relinquish your place?

MRS. DAILLY: It would be interesting to be able to follow,

just once, a proper debate in this House. What has been happening

throughout all of this government's legislation since we first arrived

here, since the legislation was first presented for debate, has been

what you might call a very strange one-sided debate. That's what I'm

discussing right now: the debate on this bill. As well, it would be a

much more interesting debate if someone from the back bench

particularly of the government side would get up and explain to us why

they support the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1983.

[9:45]

The people in the gallery must find it rather interesting that all of the debate

presented here tonight has been against this bill. They have not heard anything

in favour of it, and I can almost be sure they will not until the minister ends

by reading a prepared statement in which he will outline to the House the cabinet's

reasons for this.

Perhaps some of the back-benchers agree with the amendments to the

Public Service Labour Relations Act. But just thumping their desks,

just filling their seats for an evening session, to be sure that if a

vote comes they won't be outvoted, is, in my opinion, not taking their

full responsibility. I really believe it would help this debate

immensely if we could hear more reasons from the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I will now move on to the actual sections of the bill,

in deference to you as the Speaker — not, may I say, in deference to

the members from the other side who are asking me to speak to the bill,

when they won't ever get on their feet to speak on any of the bills.

Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me, in my hand, something which I

know other members of the NDP have brought forward to the members of

the House since this debate started earlier today. It's called "Master

Agreement Between the Government of the Province of British Columbia,

Represented by the Government Employee Relations Bureau, and the B.C.

Government Employees' Union." This is a little blue book, but it took

many months and years of hard bargaining and negotiation and discussion

between the government and the members of the union to produce this

book. The reason the official opposition is so much against what has

been brought forward tonight in this bill is that despite all the

[ Page 2470 ]

hard work that went on.... I know you, Mr. Speaker,

have a union background and would be aware of what I'm saying. A

tremendous amount of work went into producing this master agreement

between the government and the public service employees.

Here we are tonight, by this act, being asked to wipe out a number

of hard-fought agreements, which were agreed to, remember, by the

government, signed by the government's representative. It's all right

to fight hard, from the government's point of view, and withhold from

the unions certain areas that they refused to give in on; that is the

natural way of bargaining. But I tell you, Mr. Speaker, only a very

regressive, reactionary government would take away from a union what

they have already fought for. This is the issue here tonight. We could

debate for many hours the pros and cons of some of the agreements here;

you and I and others could have a lot of agreement and disagreement on

them. But the basic principle that we're fighting here tonight is that

once government has given, through full collective bargaining, certain

agreements and agreed to them and signed for them and made official

contracts between government and employees, it has no right to bring

into this House a piece of legislation that wipes out parts of that

collective agreement. The worst part of this bill is that from

everything we have been able to see and to study in the amendments,

what has been eliminated pretty well guts the whole collective

bargaining aspect of the union.

It's interesting to note

section 1.02, which was signed and agreed

to by the negotiators for the government and for the union. It says:

"In the event that any future legislation renders null and void or

materially alters any provision of this agreement, the remaining

provisions shall remain in effect for the term of the agreement, and

the parties hereto shall negotiate a mutually agreeable provision to be

substituted for the provision so rendered null and void or materially

altered." In other words, this

article 1.02 on future legislation

states that if anything is removed the parties shall negotiate a

mutually agreeable provision to be substituted. This was signed by the

Social Credit government and agreed to by the Social Credit government.

Yet here tonight we are being asked to support a piece of legislation

brought before us that removes certain items which are obviously not

being negotiated any further. In fact, we are being asked to pass this

bill. Once it's passed, that's it. Talking about negotiations after the

fact has now become almost a farce. Apparently the two groups have had

very little opportunity to meet properly and negotiate. The union knows

that this bill is hanging over their heads. They know that the

government has a large majority and that they can ensure that it will

be passed in time.

It is not the essence of each

article that we are here to fight for.

After all, we are not representing the unions; we are representing the

people of British Columbia. If we stand here and allow a bill to pass

which is going to abrogate the word of the government, which was signed

in good faith, then we are saying to the people of British Columbia

that we agree that the Social Credit government has a right to break

contracts with the workers of this province. Once a government takes

upon itself the right to break contracts, legally signed and signed by

themselves, then we must ask ourselves who is next in this province.

How can any citizen who thinks carefully about this matter possibly

have any faith in or respect for a government which gives this kind of

leadership? It is really reprehensible, because it is not the

leadership that a government should be giving to the citizens of

British Columbia. Instead we find that it is a very heavy-handed,

autocratic move by a government which wants to gets its way with the

public service unions without having to go through proper negotiation.

I believe the government is acting as a bully, because they have

taken on the public service sector again. They've already done it in

another bill, and here we have it again in this bill. They have helped

to build up in the public's mind a myth that the public employees of

British Columbia have had it so good that it doesn't matter what you do

to them, and that the only way you can bring about restraint is to give

it to one sector of society as hard as you can. That again shows that

this government is not fit to be leading this province. In a time of

recession we don't need punitive, hard measures, or a government to

lead us into breaking contracts. That's the last thing needed today.

As many of the other speakers in the NDP have said earlier tonight

and this afternoon, the best thing that could be done by any government

that has particular problems today in wondering what to do in a time of

recession, and who are unable to handle some redundant programs in the

public service, is to sit down with their employees and negotiate

together properly. But not the Social Credit government. They are

trying to do two things at once. They're trying to reemphasize in the

public's mind that the public service of British Columbia is fair game

for any kind of kicking around, and at the same time they're also

attempting to get themselves out of difficulties which they've put

themselves into. They are doing this by turning the public service of

British Columbia into second-class citizens. The NDP can in no way sit

here and let that go by. That's why we're very disappointed that no one

on the other side seems to have anything to say about this important

piece of legislation.

This kind of thing happened many years ago. It seems years ago that

I stood on my feet debating Bill 2, and I remember at the time I went

through the history of the public service. I won't bore you with that

again, Mr. Speaker. But I remember going through the history of the

public service and pointing out how in the twenties they were at the

mercy of whatever government happened to be in. If the government was

kind to them, they got something; if the government wasn't, they got

nothing. The only thing that has protected the public service from that

kind of behaviour from governments today has been this blue book. If

you don't have a collective agreement, it means that we're going back

to the old days where government becomes the benefactor and decides

when and where they will improve the conditions of the public servant.

That is all I'm saying.

I don't understand why the government is so afraid of facing the

public servants of this province and negotiating with them the very

things that they have put in this bill and are attempting to move out

of the act without proper negotiation. We still don't know why it was

necessary to do it this way. As I said when I started speaking this

evening, putting aside what is being removed in this bill, underlying

it is a basic principle of the heavy hand of government having to bring

in a bill to push through these changes instead of sitting down and

continuing to negotiate with the employees. That's the basic issue that

we don't understand. The only way that I can understand it is that the

government is a bully....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, one moment please. Can we have some degree of quietness in the chamber while the member is on her feet, please.

[ Page 2471 ]

[10:00]

MRS. DAILLY: I know that it must be boring and tiring for

some of the members here to have to listen to these speeches, but as

boring and tiring as it may be to them, this happens to be one of the

most vital pieces of legislation that's gone through this House for

many years, because underlying it is the principle which I have just

been speaking about. Underlying it is a principle of complete

repudiation of a contract duly signed by a government with a group of

citizens. That is not a thing which should create yawns, but

unfortunately it does with some of the back-benchers. Unfortunately the

public of B.C., by and large, out there are struggling along to meet

their problems today in holding their jobs and in trying to survive in

a recessionary period, and I'm sure that the basic principle of what is

being done to a group of union people having their contract broken is

not a "grabber." The things that appear most dull in debate are often

the most important. That is why I intend to continue speaking tonight

and to bring up further points on this bill.

[Mr. Reynolds in the chair.]

I know earlier this evening one of my colleagues was discussing his

great concern over the whole area of contracting out. I realize the

question as to whether this bill allows for that could be open for

debate.

Section 13, as amended, says this: "No collective agreement

shall affect...the organization, establishment and administration of

the ministries and branches of the government, including the right of

the government to establish and eliminate positions, to assign duties

to positions, to establish work scheduling" — and this is the part, Mr.

Speaker — "and to determine programs and services and the method of

their delivery...." We contend that that could apply to the whole area

of contracting out. One of my colleagues attempted to point out to the

minister who brought this bill in that his government already has

embarked on a very dangerous program with this massive move toward

contracting out of the public service.

If I may, I want to make a couple of points on this. I hope that

when the minister winds up his debate he will tell us what kind of

studies have been made by his government in the whole area of

contracting out versus leaving it with the public service. I have some

studies in front of me, and perhaps the minister in conclusion will be

able to tell us of some of his studies, because we know that the Social

Credit government and that minister obviously believe in the

contracting out of public services. If I may quote from some of these

studies that have been done:

"When the costs of contracting out are considered,

some jurisdictions forget the 'hidden' costs for contract

administration, including" — and I'd like to list some of them —

"contract preparation and monitoring the contractor's performance.

Renegotiation costs should also be considered. The federal government

uses 4 percent of the total contract cost as the incurred expense for

contract administration. However, we feel this figure is too low."

That is one of the things that I wish the government would consider when they are even looking into the area of contracting out.

"One recent example of higher costs as a result of

contracting out" — and I have to refer to other cities here, Mr.

Speaker — "involved custodial services in New York City. The city's

human resources administration had for many years contracted with

private vendors to provide custodians for some buildings and increased

this practice when freezes were imposed on hiring new city employees.

AFSCME District Council 37, believing that public employees could do

the same job cheaper, sponsored a study comparing public and private

costs."

That's really what we're asking: has the government ever done this?

"The study showed that in many of the locations being

serviced by outside contractors, the work could be done more

efficiently by city employees. As a result, the city, accepting the

validity of the union's study, has so far cancelled contracts at six

locations. In Troy, New York, management and union cooperation also

proved that publicly provided services — in this case, street

maintenance work — can be more efficient than work done by private

vendors. After privately provided street maintenance costs

skyrocketed...."

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I made this point a

little earlier that the

section of legislation she is referring to....

She infers that it addresses the question of contracting out, and my

point is that it does not. She is embarking upon debate.... It is not

within the bill. If she wants to debate the issue of contracting out,

maybe I can bring in another amendment to make sure that she is in

order, but in the meantime she is out of order.

MRS. DAILLY: It seems quite clear to us that this bill refers

to giving the government the right to set the whole method of their

delivery of services. What else could that mean but that the government

will have the right if they so wish, to contract out? I am just simply

saying to the minister.... Hopefully — and he says he would bring in an

amendment to do it, so it is quite clear that he is in favour of it —

when he closes this debate.... I just wish that he would bring in some

studies of his own. We consider this to be very serious, and it is tied

in with the whole area of this government's handling of the public

service. If the minister feels I am out of order, in deference to the

minister and to you, Mr. Speaker. I will go back to other sections of

the bill which state that certain clauses of the collective agreement

will be deleted, and I will express our concern over them at this time.

The bill repeals

section 13 of the act, as we all know. This basically

eliminates the power of the union to bargain collectively any issues

other than wages and the placement of individuals within the

classification system. It guts the current collective agreement, and if

passed will all but destroy unionism within the public service. We want

the minister and some of the back-benchers to stand up here and tell us

what right this government has, what mandate were they given, to gut

the whole collective agreement that was already signed by them in the

past. I do not believe that the people of British Columbia are carrying

on a vendetta against the public service that would bring this about.

We all know there are cases where people get tired of waiting in

lineups; we have been through all that before. But to build up a myth

against one group of society so that you can bring in a massive basic

change to their working conditions and their whole life as workers is

what I consider to be rather reprehensible. Why is

[ Page 2472 ]

this bill bring brought in, which will almost eliminate collective bargaining for the public service?

What I don't understand.... Why not be honest? Why is the government

not honest and straightforward with the people of B.C. and its public

servants, and why don't they come out and simply bring in a bill that

eliminates the right of the public servants of British Columbia to have

any bargaining at all? What they are doing is giving a slow death to,

and making a mockery of, collective bargaining for public servants in

British Columbia. I think people would say: "At least they have come

out and we know where they stand. They don't believe in collective

bargaining." Instead of that they are trying to pass a bill that almost

literally does the same thing: it destroys collective bargaining. Yet

that minister will stand up in conclusion and try to suggest to us that

this is not so. That is why the NDP are on their feet debating it,

because we believe that in essence you are destroying collective

bargaining.

I made notes of your speech, Mr. Minister; I really did. But how on

earth can you have a blue book like this and then bring in a bill which

nullifies and removes without any negotiation many of the agreements

that have been signed by your government and by the union? Then the

minister tries to suggest that there is not a basic attempt to

eliminate collective bargaining for public servants.

Section 13, as it reads now, in the blue book states: "Every

collective agreement shall include all matters affecting wages or

salary, hours of work and other working conditions, except...." In

effect this was a special clause, a residual clause giving the union

the right to bargain working conditions, with certain defined

exceptions. You see, Mr. Speaker, there were exceptions there which

were agreed to by the union in past negotiations. If the government was

able to work with the union in the past and work out exceptions

mutually agreed to, why on earth then this year, in 1983, do they have

to bring in a piece of legislation that forces these exceptions onto

the union? What is different from a year ago, or the years before? What

was wrong? What is the reason for this legislation? That is the basic

question that is being raised here tonight. The union obviously agreed

to exceptions before.

This clause is repealed and the amendments to this

section clearly

and severely restrict or abolish bargaining on a wide range of issues

which have hitherto been agreed upon in collective agreements. Clause

13 (l)(

a) of the current act provided that the collective agreement

should not affect the principle of merit in the appointment and

promotion of public service employees. That is really an important one.

In practice, this clause has been interpreted to mean that the

application of the merit principle can be bargained. This has been

reflected in collective agreements. But this new bill that has been

brought in without negotiation provides that a collective agreement

shall not deal with methods of recruitment to the public service,

whether from within or outside the public service. This, therefore,

will free the government — this is the important part; this is what

concerns the NDP and many others, if this bill passes — to appoint

widely from outside the public service and should be seen as a clear

attempt to undermine a professional public service and restore a

patronage system.

Mr. Speaker, when I was reciting the history of the public service

of British Columbia, starting from the 20s, there was one particular

example I used in the days before the union had their collective

agreement and protection from it. That was cases where public servants

could be moved out of jobs, into jobs, demoted, promoted — not on the

basis of merit, but on the basis of how they got along with their

employer. We have to ask, why has this been removed? It is something

that was fought for over the years by the union, and it is being wiped

out in this piece of legislation that we are being asked to pass

tonight.

I think the minister owes it to the House to tell us how he is going

to ensure that there will be no patronage. How is he going to ensure

that this won't happen now, once he has removed what was previously in

the blue book?

I know that the days of the idea that "you can trust us".... We've

heard that on almost every piece of regressive legislation that's been

brought into this House by the Social Credit. "Trust us, it'll be all

right." I don't care if they're the best government in the world.

Somehow or other I don't think they are. Even if they were, the best

government in the world must at least ensure that what is policy is

written so that it cannot be wiped out at whim. It must not be put into

pieces of legislation or into agreements and then withdrawn by whim. We

can't afford to trust any government on things like this, Mr. Speaker.

That is not the way governments should be run today. That's how our

civilization has advanced, because those days of one-man rule, the

decisions being made on the basis of what the person in charge felt,

are long gone. I recall, even when I first came to this House, before

the public servants had their full collective bargaining, the former

Premier — the father of the present Premier — would announce at public

service banquets what the increases were going to be. Now, Mr. Speaker,

whether the increase was a tremendous increase or not, and whether it

would make most of the public servants exceptionally happy, that is not

the way that government should be handling the matter of wage

negotiations with their employees. If the Social Credit government

thinks that just because they want to turn back the clock in everything

they can actually turn back the clock on the whole tradition of

bargaining between employee and management, I think even the Social

Credit government is taking on a bit too much here.

These are the things that we cannot understand. This government

somehow or other wants to clear the decks so that they are not hindered

by collective agreements any more, so they can move at whim with their

employees as was done years ago, before collective agreements came in.

[10:15]

Mr. Speaker, clause 13 (l)(a), as I mentioned, dealt with the

removal of the merit principle, and I've expressed our concern over

that. This amendment centrally challenges

article 12 of the master

agreement — the service career policy. The current provisions that

would be threatened or removed include.... Here are examples. I know

this was read to the minister earlier, but it was in the afternoon and

this is the evening. He's been sitting here a long time, so I want to

refresh his memory.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, just in case it isn't, I'll just read over

it. Current provisions that would be threatened or removed include the

12.08

article — and that's the posting of job vacancies. Remember, this

will now be removed. "Union observer on selection panels; appeal

procedure for unsuccessful in-service applicants; protection of the

employee against relocation; seniority of auxiliary employees applying

[ Page 2473 ]

for regular positions." Elimination of these

provisions in a collective agreement undermines the notion — and this

is the issue — of a public service career.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that once that is eliminated, it's not the

public servants themselves, alone, who are going to suffer from this.

Everyone will suffer, because whatever we think of the public service,

we know that it can be a very rewarding and challenging career. We know

that all politicians, particularly when they move into the area of

cabinet and accept a ministerial appointment, depend greatly on

qualified career public servants, deputies, etc. Mr. Speaker, if you

are going to eliminate the whole incentive for the public servant to

make a true career of being a public servant, not only they will suffer

but all the taxpayers will, because you do need a good public service

to assist the ministers in running government. These things that are

being done by the Social Credit government through this bill may

ultimately come back to haunt them. They may find themselves in great

difficulty in finding people who are truly committed to being public

servants and who want to make it a life and a career. If you remove

from them some of these basic underpinnings which public servants must

have in order to feel that they are secure and can move ahead and make

a career of it, what are you going to have left?

I wonder if the minister in charge of this bill has really given

thought to this. As a matter of fact, I hope he will tell us how all

this really came about. Did he sit in his office with some of his

deputies and bureaucrats around him and say to them: "I want

an act

brought in that will eliminate many of the features of collective

bargaining"? Or did he get instructions from the cabinet or from the

Premier? Who gave these instructions? Why, Mr. Speaker? What was wrong

with carrying on, as most governments in our country do, with proper

bargaining? I don't think any other province in Canada has decided that

no longer do they want to sit down and bargain properly, and instead

are bringing in legislation which is actually eliminating the rights of

much of the bargaining procedures which took place before.

So I think the minister should explain to the House what is really

behind this legislation, Mr. Speaker. Why was it brought in? No one

knows. I hope that overused word "restraint" will not be brought up

again in this kind of bill, because there is far more to this bill than

any attempt to say that this is for restraint. This bill deals entirely

— as my colleague has just said — with power. This deals with the power

of a government that feels that it's easy to pick on one sector — the

public sector — because they don't think the public will be too

concerned. But they have no right to treat anyone in this province as a

second-class citizen.

Those are my primary reasons. I don't know all the details and

ramifications of this contract. That doesn't concern us right here and

now. What does concern us is that this contract was made and signed by

the government with its employees, and no government has the right to

come out with a piece of legislation that breaks that contract.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, in entering this debate tonight, I

certainly don't stand up as an expert on collective agreements. Of all

the things that I've encountered throughout my lifetime, being part of

a bargaining process has not been one of my more memorable experiences.

Maybe I've led a sheltered life, and maybe other people have always

done my bargaining for me. I don't stand up here as an expert on these

matters. I think a person has to take a very quick sort of cram course

in various parts of contracts, and it's a subject which I think

necessitates a great deal of expertise.

Beyond the expertise, I think you also need a sensitivity to what is

being attempted to be achieved. I think the time when we had the

master-servant relationship has long since gone by. Whether we are

willing or whether they were grudgingly given over the years, since we

began knocking people on the head in the coal-mines of Mr. Dunsmuir

just up the Island a little piece, we've had people gradually fighting

and achieving more and more rights to determine not only where they

will work but how much they will get paid for their work, and also the

working conditions under which they have to operate.

So, Mr. Speaker, I don't come here as any lofty expert in

participating in the debate on this bill. As a matter of fact, I'm a

bit resentful about having to do it at all, in the sense that we have

to do this sort of thing in the dead of night. I don't think that it's

necessary to go all night in order to achieve a certain kind of

legislative package. There might be some arguments about that from the

other side because they feel that they have been forced into this by

the intransigence of the loyal opposition. However, I don't know — I've

looked through the standing orders, and somewhat through Beauchesne and

Erskine May, and I find nowhere in there that it says that if the

government brings forward 30 bills in a particular session, somehow

it's incumbent upon us to deal with all of them. I don't think it is.

I think that we've had considerable experience with many

Legislatures, including the one down in Ottawa, in which we had one

session that lasted for, I think, almost three years — one single

session in which they attempted to put through a very large but very

controversial legislative package....

But that package is always subject to change, additions and

deletions, and perhaps that's what we should be considering here. So I

don't feel any obligation that because the government trots forth 30

bills, some of them extremely controversial — the "dirty dozen" plus a

few sleepers — I should have to give up my nights in order to help the

government get them through, especially, too, when I object so strongly

to some of them.

These people will say: "Well, after all, why should the public

servants have any rights anyway?" Traditionally the public servant

traded the rewards he might have in the jungle if he went into private

enterprise.... He might trade that for the security, the gold watch and

the golden handshake some 30 years down the road. He would trade that

for, oh, better salaries and the chance to get ahead. Maybe it was a

nice, quiet, tranquil repository for those people who really didn't

have much ambition. That was the traditional view of it. Many people

did not work in the public service in the old days, because the public

service was considerably smaller. Maybe it's that yearning for the old

days that prompts this legislation tonight — the yearning that if we

would get back to simpler days, somehow all would be right with the

world; if we could only trim off the fat, all would be right with the

world.

It's ironic that tonight, when the Government Employees' Union is

meeting in plenary session to determine their course — what they will

do in response to moves on the part of the government — we should be

debating this bill. I don't know what the outcome will be, but I will

hazard this as a guess, as a former public servant myself: it will take

a great deal to provoke the public service

into any kind of militant action. I have been through enough

agreements, or attempts to achieve

[ Page 2474 ]

agreement, on the part of various school districts in the province

to know that at least that group of public servants — which

incidentally, I am aware are not covered under this bill, but just to

use it as an analogy from my own experience.... It's very difficult

to provoke — or it has been, traditionally — schoolteachers, for one,

into any sort of militant, precipitous action.

I presume that the same thing is true of the other public servants.

If they take job action, it will only be as a last resort. If they are

pushed into some sort of job action, it will be because they find no

other alternatives acceptable to them. No amount of rhetoric on the

part of their leadership is going to change that at all. They are not

going to be whipped up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Garbage!

MR. ROSE: Give me an example of a strike in the public

service that you've heard of — job action of any kind. We had a one-day

work stoppage on the ferries last summer — a year ago. When have we had

one recently? Nevertheless, I don't think public servants are going to

sit there lany longer like cowed slaves and take everything that's

handed out to them. If that's what you want for Canadian citizens — to

be beaten like the whipped Taiwanese or the Koreans, or other people

who have no rights, then that's what you.... You might as well

stand up and say that that's really what you're after. What you are

really saying is that you have no respect for the dignity of those

people who devote their lives to public enterprise.

It wasn't always so that we had a lot of people employed by the

public service. Again, I hope it's not tedious repetition, but I

repeat: I don't think that we have quite got used to the complex

society that demands it. Even Reagan in the United States was supposed

to be such a model of cutbacks. He was going to slash the public

service, but he hasn't been able to do it because those people are

needed in society. When we weren't dumping tons of chemicals into the

atmosphere of Ashcroft or Spences Bridge, we perhaps didn't need

pollution control inspectors either; when we had a smaller population

and fewer fires, we didn't need a clean-air inspector. When we had no

automobiles, of course, we didn't need vehicle inspectors either. We

haven't got them now, but what I am attempting to say is that we lived

in a much simpler society, and naturally we didn't think we needed so

many.

If people grew up on the farms, we didn't need as many school

teachers, right? If we had extended families and people looked after

their own, more or less, in spite of the Dickensian conditions that we

have read about in the past — the tremendously harsh lives that people

half led until an early death — we perhaps didn't need any child abuse

teams or old people's homes or social workers or people who dealt with

the problems created not just because man is necessarily evil, but

because we live in a far different society now than we did when we had

only a rural agrarian society. We had no need for a toxic-waste dump in

Ashcroft 40 years ago, because we didn't have chemical industries with

such an intensity that we needed to take that poison and find a place

for it. I agree with the minister: we have to find a place for it. The

question is, as he points out, that nobody really wants it. We are

probably not going to have a public dump up there anyway; we will

probably have a private one somewhere.

When I began speaking about the number of people employed in public

enterprise compared to a number of years ago, I was thinking how it

compared to my own family. My own family, like most people's family,

consisted of a father and a mother....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: It is kind of nice if it works out that way.

MR. REID: "Would anybody in the room with a conscience stand up" — is that what you are saying?

[10:30]

MR. ROSE: No, I am not asking for any public confessions here this evening.

Anyway, my father worked, and most of the time he was lucky he

worked. He didn't work in the public service; he worked for private

enterprise. Incidentally, the company for which he worked has since

been bought out, and the jobs have disappeared. The main industry of my

community has now disappeared because it sold out to American

ownership. We still have the label, and it is called Aylmer, but it is

produced in the United States. He worked and my mother stayed home.

That is unusual now. Today, in order even to buy a house, two people in

the family have to work; it is quite different. We really didn't come

in contact with many public servants. I can't recall, other than school

teachers and the policeman, any public servants in the town where I

grew up. Obviously they were there; they might have been somebody like

the town clerk or something like that.

But getting back to my family and the public service, what is of

particular interest to me.... I have a brother who works for

private enterprise and is doing very well. He is an achiever. He knows

what it is to meet a payroll and all those fine things that people

should aspire to in this life if they are not slackers who end up in

the public trough like politicians do. Both my brother and I have three

children. It didn't seem to matter that I worked in public enterprise

and he worked in private enterprise: we produced only three children

each. I want to tell you about these three children.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they boys or girls?

MR. ROSE: Just hang in there and I will tell you.

Incidentally, let me tell you about my father and private

enterprise. By the time he was 63 1/2, he paid into his pension....

That is in the bill. That is right on order, Mr. Speaker, because 13(

b) talks about pension. He got fired. He didn't have any vesting so he

didn't get any money out of it. That was his experience with private

enterprise: they didn't have to pay his pension.

I have two daughters who are schoolteachers. They both work in the

public service. I have one who works night and day in private

enterprise — in Surrey, as a matter of fact.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I think she is being exploited, but I told her to

keep quiet because she had no rights, and therefore if she didn't shut

up she might get fired.

MR. REID: That won't happen in Surrey.

MR. ROSE: Well, I don't know about Surrey. What they might

do, as this bill allows, is relocate her and fire her somewhere else

because they couldn't fire her in Surrey.

[ Page 2475 ]

They can relocate this person anywhere. I hope she does a good job

for the firm for which she works, even though I think the hours she has

to work....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Is this really relevant to the bill?

MR. ROSE: Well, it really is. I was trying to explain the

growth of the public service in my own family. If it has happened in my

own family — which we could call, say, a lower-middle-class family,

with pretensions toward upward social mobility.... Anyway, I think

we have to call it like it is.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Some of us pretend to upward social mobility more actively than others.

Two daughters, two schoolteachers; one works in private enterprise.

One niece is a schoolteacher and one is a nurse; one nephew works for a

Crown corporation, Out of those six — the gang of six — of the third

generation, you can see how it has gone. It went from one person

working in private enterprise to one in private and one in public

enterprise — I consider politicians to be working in public enterprise,

even though I don't think all you guys over there are lazy.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I don't know whether or not they're working. But

listen, don't lose that job, because if you ever do you might have to

go to work, and that would probably be a great shock to you.

It has gone from one to one to five out of six in public enterprise.

That is really the growth of the public service in one microcosmic

example — one family.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'll tell you what happened. My father and mother

sacrificed; they sent me away to school. One of the things they said

was: "What you should do is learn some big words. If you're going to go

on to school, what you should do is at least sound as if you've been

there. It really doesn't matter whether or not you've got any brains,

As long as you can use a lot of big words, it will baffle a lot of

people." I don't know how to pronounce all the words, like some of my

friends across here, but as I encounter some big ones I attempt to

learn them.

When we're talking about public servants, we're talking about the

relatives of just about everybody in this room. I defy anybody in this

room to stand up and say they do not have some relative — maybe not a

direct relative, but at least a relative — who isn't employed in some

form of public service, either through a Crown corporation....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I don't.

MR. ROSE: Well, if you have no relatives, Mr. Minister, that's not my problem.

All we know is that there are roughly 250,000 of them in this

province alone, so I think there's a good chance that most people in

the room have relatives working in the public service. Therefore to

remove the rights of such a vast group of people is a political act of

some bravery, I would think — to risk that kind of a name for no other

reasons than political ones. You cannot make a scapegoat of, and label,

a whole group of people and take away their rights, without their

feeling that somehow they have been betrayed. They have spent their

lives preparing themselves to make a positive contribution within the

public system because they were urged to do so; at the same time you

can't say to them: "Because you've done so, forever and ever you are

guaranteed a job." But that isn't what the collective agreement says.

The collective agreement says that if there are certain redundancies in

the kind of service we don't need any more, there are ways of

negotiating out of it. But you don't want to negotiate at all; you want

to come in here with a bill, with your 35 to 22, push everybody around

and get it passed tonight — if we'd let you. We're not going to let you.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you about one of my first recollections

of politics. Some people — to get to the bill — have suggested that the

changes that have been put forward in the bill can lead to patronage, a

system that we abandoned when we developed the merit system of

competitive examinations and consultation about employment, relocation

and job classification, which are all gone out of here. Isn't that

right? The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) nods his head.

They're all gone. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) applauds because

he doesn't believe they should be there in the first place. That's

fine. That's his opinion; his opinion will undoubtedly prevail.

I'm sorry that the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) isn't here.

My house was on the street, leading to what we then called the

government barn. There was this government barn. I'll tell you what the

government barn was for. This goes back to the old days when the

graders and everything were pulled by horses. He was on his way to the

government barn — we'll call him Mr. Smith.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, I'll ask the member for New

Westminster and the member for Omineca to go out in the hall and talk

to each other and let the member for Coquitlam-Moody continue.

MR. ROSE: I was giving a little "anticdote" about my first encounter with patronage in government.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'm glad you asked that question. I was perhaps 9

or 10 or 11 about that time; it was in the thirties. Apparently there

had been an election. I saw a neighbour — we'll call him Mr. Smith;

that wasn't his name — heading to the government barn; he drove a

grader. I heard my mother say: "Well, I'm sure glad that so-and-so won

the election. Now Mr. Smith won't lose his job." Whenever an election

occurred in British Columbia in the thirties, thousands of people who

were civil servants, right down to the people who worked on the roads

as grader operators — originally driving horses and later mechanized —

lost their jobs. They happened to pick the wrong horse. But when we

brought in such things as recruitment by posting competitions and the

merit principle for promotion, we made certain that the delivery of

services would come through the public service instead of

[ Page 2476 ]

giving out jobs for the boys to contractors who were favourable to

the government. We began to develop a stable, confident and

professional public service. So whether or not Mr. Smith had a job the

next day didn't depend on who won the election. That was my first

recollection. What frightens and troubles me is that perhaps we might

be returning to the time when if you're a public servant and you don't

watch it, you can be out — not on assignment, just out. Along with Bill

3, this gives the government the opportunity to fire people without

cause. That's not the kind of future towards which I think we should be

heading.

Contracting out. Everybody seems to have startled the Provincial Secretary and provoked him into rising....

MR. KEMPF: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have read this bill

on numerous occasions. Although I would like to see a clause in regard

to contracting out, there is no such clause in Bill 2.

MR. ROSE: I would like to respond to that. Everything that is

permitted is not explicit in any piece of legislation. Some things are

implicit. If you cancel certain provisions such as a method of

recruitment that is fair, open and honest, if you ignore the idea of

merit pay, if you leave open to the government its own method of the

delivery of service and if, in its opinion, the delivery of service is

more favourably handled, as far as the government is concerned, by an

outside contractor, then you can do it.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I don't care what they said. If the Provincial

Secretary is willing to bring in an amendment, as he suggested, to make

it explicit that nothing in this bill will permit contracting out, then

we'll vote for that. Of course he's not going to. If contracting out is

not contemplated, why wouldn't the Provincial Secretary be prepared to

bring it in? I would think that if he doesn't intend to do it — and

doesn't need that kind of freedom — he should have no fear of making it

explicit. I wouldn't think that that would trouble him at all.

[10:45]

There's something else. Although it's been repealed, we once had an

appeal procedure — I can give you the

chapter and verse of it, if you want,

outlined in yellow on page 29 — even in terms of recruitment. When we're

talking about fairness, we're losing a great deal. Again, the relocation

side of it is a very great concern of mine.

What do we mean, anyway, about contracting out? What would be the

point of contracting out? Well, I think there are a number of reasons

for contracting out. First, because you want to get somebody on the

cheap — that's one reason. We saw the bulldozer guys from Hydro

demonstrating this afternoon in Langley. They're union members but they

are private entrepreneurs. They're worried about Hydro contracting out,

about the rate they're getting and how they're forced to compete with

one another to the point where they said they're only getting a

take-home pay of $4 per hour. They were demonstrating in front of the

Ministry of Labour. Why would you want to do that? Why would you want

to contract out? One reason is that you might be able to wring people

out and have them competing against one another, like we have on the

rural mail deliveries. A lot of people compete for the rural mail

deliveries....

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise on

standing order 43 and bring to your attention that the member is, and

has been, embarking on debate that is absolutely irrelevant to this

bill with regard to contracting out. There is absolutely no mention

whatsoever in this bill of contracting out.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member

for Omineca persists in making this point, but the Chair has already

ruled on this. I would think that would be satisfactory.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair did make a ruling earlier this

evening that allows certain leeway in second reading of this bill. I

would ask the member for Coquitlam-Moody to continue.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that no explicit mention

of contracting out in the bill does not mean it's not implicit. If you

remove all the provisions against contracting out, then it would be

allowed. If you take out all the negatives, you end up with a positive.

I think anybody can understand that. Why would we be interested in that

at all? The first reason is that you might be able to get it on the

cheap. The second is that perhaps you could have fewer people on the

public payroll. You'd be spending the same money, but maybe you would

have a smaller number of people on the payroll doing the same work, or

even more. Or even less work, if you look at the Michigan study. But

it's hidden, because you don't have the number of civil servants. Then

you can farm that stuff out to anybody you wish. You don't even have to

have competitive bidding for any of these things. That isn't in there

either. I can get to the point of what is in there at any time, and

would be delighted to.

Now the third point. The first is on the cheap, the second is

cutting down on the number of employees. We had the same thing with a

sternwheeler in the Fraser River. They retired the sternwheeler, which

had five people working on it. They put it up on a berth in New

Westminster and contracted out the work it had done. If you do that

everywhere, you still do the same amount of work, it still costs the

public the same money, but you have fewer people on the payroll. It's a

matter of philosophy. I'm saying that this is a possibility. The third

reason is that if you don't have as many people on the public payroll,

then you don't have as many potential union members; therefore you

don't have the strength. The union doesn't have the power and you can

break the union. You've eliminated most of their functions now. By

enough contracting out you don't have public employees at all. They're

not covered. They don't need to be paid fringes. They don't have any

pensions. You can get away with all kinds of stuff that you couldn't

get away with if you had organized workers in the public service.

Incidentally, if you don't have a decent payroll, all the small....

AN HON. MEMBER: It costs the taxpayer less.

MR. ROSE: That hasn't been proven to anybody.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Sometimes you can get a few people to work on the cheap, but it doesn't mean you're going to save any

[ Page 2477 ]

money in total. It might, but at the same time you do need a professional workforce that has stability.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: On what? You don't want a public service. You want

to contract everything out. You don't want any unions either. You don't

want anybody who is organized to fight for their own rights. That's

what you want to get rid of. Who is going to shop at your store if you

don't have a payroll in the community? Take all the postal worker jobs

and school teacher jobs out of the community. Ask the merchants in your

community if they want the school teachers, postal workers, policemen

or social workers to shop at their stores. You've got to have an

efficient, productive workforce.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Why don't you open up your own courier service like

Pink Lady and get rid of the post office? That's something else you'd

like to do.

MR. REID: That might not be a bad idea. It works perfectly in the States, and you get your mail the next day.

MR. ROSE: They'll do exactly what the cable companies do.

What's going to happen if you privatize these things is the same thing

that happened to the cable companies, Mr. Speaker. They skim. The

lucrative markets.... The electrical companies did the same thing;

that's why W.A.C. Bennett, to his credit, took over and made sure that

Golden had lights. Let there be light in Golden, and look what came out

of it — the flashing light. The point is that the courier services will

skim. They'll use the lucrative markets and let the public sector pick

up the poor ones. That's what the electrical and telephone companies

have done, and that's what the cable companies are doing.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We're not talking about that, for crying out loud.

MR. ROSE: Oh, I'm getting close. After all, you're the

Minister of Tourism, you've done a few verbal tours in your life. I'm

on an excursion here, and being provoked by some of the people over

there.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This member

makes an absolute mockery of this House and I take exception to that.

Either that member speaks to this bill and is relevant, or I would ask

that you take action against him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member for Coquitlam-Moody to

try to stick to the bill. I would also suggest to the other hon.

members that the member is being interfered with when he is speaking

and is answering some of those interjections. If he was left in

silence, he might be able to complete the last seven or eight minutes

of his speech on the bill.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, this bill eliminates the power of a

union to bargain on any issues other than wages and placements. If you

have a piece of legislation that precludes a group of employees from

bargaining for things other than wages and placements within the

classification system, then what areas are left for bargaining? The

wages part of it is going to be handled by the compensation

commissioner. Let's pretend that we go through with this charade in

which the union — whatever component — bargains. The union bargains for

a particular kind of remuneration. That remuneration is not acceptable

to the compensation commissioner and the compensation commissioner then

rolls it back. So what's the point of bargaining for wages? Bargaining

has gone out the window. All kinds of things that used to be

bargainable are not bargainable any