1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th 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)

MONDAY, JULY 26, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 17

[ Page 9149 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I would like to introduce a new British Columbian who was born on Saturday in Royal Jubilee Hospital at a healthy 9 pounds 2 ounces. Madeline Patricia Baldrey is the second daughter of Mr. Keith Baldrey and his wife, Anne Mullens. Mr. Baldrey certainly doesn't make our life around here more pleasant, but probably more interesting. I understand that the first words that Madeline, who is quite an impressive newborn, was heard to utter were: "Would you please finish up the business around this House, so my dad can get home and carry out his parenting duties as quickly as possible?"

V. Anderson: I would like to welcome to the House Mr. and Mrs. Norm Ellis and two friends of theirs who are visiting from Australia, Mr. and Mrs. Hale. Would the House make them welcome.

Would the House also make welcome Ed Eduljee, director of Multiculturalism B.C., whom I have had the opportunity of working with for some 20 years.

A. Cowie: I would like everyone in the House to welcome Edwin Pearson and his wife Suzanne, long-time Liberals who live in my riding. Could everybody make them welcome.

D. Streifel: It's a pleasure for me today to introduce two folks who have been involved in my life for quite some time: my parents, Edith Streifel and George Streifel, are in the galleries. Would the House please make them welcome.

P. Dueck: It is a delight and a privilege for me to introduce members of my family. With us today are my son Gerald, his wife Anne, their daughter Brittany and their son Cameron. With them is their cousin from Vancouver, Stephanie Dueck. My wife and I are very privileged to have such wonderful children and grandchildren, and I don't hesitate at all to say that they have inherited all their attributes and qualities from their mother. Would the House please welcome them.

Hon. D. Miller: In the gallery today, visiting from Haida Gwaii -- the Queen Charlotte Islands -- is Greg Martin, a hard-working member of the school board. I apologize: I've forgotten the name of one of his sons. One is Blake, and they're two fine young boys visiting Victoria. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery today is Mr. Ed Eduljee, who is a longtime activist in AMSSA and currently the director of multiculturalism within the Ministry of Education. He is with his parents, Eric and Kitty Eduljee, who are visiting from Poona, India..

I was just advised that the Streifels, who were just introduced, reside in Burnaby-Edmonds. I would certainly like to welcome them here.

Oral Questions

NDP LEADERSHIP

C. Tanner: I have a question today for the Premier. The national leader of the NDP has offered to resign as leader because she is at only 5 percent in the polls -- the lowest ever. The Premier is also at the lowest ever in British Columbia polling history. Has the Premier offered his resignation to his caucus?

Hon. M. Harcourt: To the member who is part of a party that's going to have its third leader in 18 months, I don't know who's talking over there. I think the member has had far more trouble with his caucus than I have with mine. I've got a great relationship with my caucus, which is something a lot of the Liberals can't say about each other.

The Speaker: I would remind all hon. members about the guidelines for question period. Supplemental, hon. member.

C. Tanner: I'm pleased to say that I'm very happy to be part of a party that shows a lot more versatility than appears over on that side of the House.

The question to the premier: is how much lower in the polls does he have to go before he offers his resignation?

PRIVATE ADOPTIONS

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. The toll-free line on information regarding the government's proposal to end private adoptions has been heavily utilized. Since the minister collects statistics on the calls, can she confirm that 95 percent have been opposed to her planned changes?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd be more than happy to provide accurate information. I'll bring that back to the House.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member?

R. Neufeld: I have a new question to the same minister, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Unless the minister has taken the question on notice, the Chair will recognize a supplemental.

R. Neufeld: Because the minister indicated that she will reverse her earlier decision to ban private adoptions, can she now verify that position for the House? Will she agree to allow public feedback on her revised position by stating it clearly in a public discussion paper?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me be very clear with you. First of all, two different consultations were underway. One consultation was an extension of your government's Bill 73. That consultation flowed from your government's bill, which decided to eliminate the business of adoption in this province. A second consultation flowed from the work of the community panel. That community panel report specifically said

[ Page 9150 ]

that all adoption legislation should be reviewed, including opportunities for full choice, for all parties to be involved in the adoption process and for openness of the adoption registry, as well as the issue of kinship. The commitment....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Would the minister please very quickly conclude her reply.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I recently announced a commitment to withdraw the amendments that flowed from your government's bill and to roll that discussion about the need for regulation into full consultation around the adoption legislation.

CLAYOQUOT SOUND DECISION

V. Anderson: The government has defended the Clayoquot decision as a balanced choice. This would seem to mean that all parties get something. What are they getting? While the environmentalists are getting jail time, the loggers are getting lost paydays and the tourists are getting a combat zone. Will the Premier indicate today that this is not working as planned? Will he admit the mistake and revisit this decision?

[2:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think that most British Columbians understand that the balance that we have strived for in the Clayoquot decision is a very difficult balance to reach. We believe that we have gotten close to that balance of a sustainable forest industry and forest communities that can have a stable future. We have increased the size of Strathcona Park dramatically with three of the most beautiful watersheds on Vancouver Island, and we have done that without prejudice to the aboriginal people. So I think that the decision on the Clayoquot, which was a difficult and tough decision, is as close as we can get to the balance that we have sought for British Columbians.

V. Anderson: As a result of the decision, the police are getting overtime, the communities are getting nowhere and children are being arrested. Will the Premier admit that he made a mistake by not using CORE? Will he undertake to have open and frank discussions and mediation so that there will be a solution at this point to the present problem with the Clayoquot?

Hon. M. Harcourt: We have responded to the Commissioner on Resources and Environment's concerns and some suggestions that he made to improve the communications and the monitoring of the toughest logging practices in North America, and to make sure that people feel they have ways of keeping the companies and the loggers to those tough standards. I think our government has been clear and fair with the people of British Columbia. I wish the Liberals would finally state their position on the Clayoquot. All I have heard is: "Delay; don't show leadership."

Interjection.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I heard the Environment critic for the Liberal Party invite the protesters to come to the Legislature again. We just got the stained-glass windows back. Why does she want to invite people to demonstrate again in the Legislature?

V. Anderson: While the children were out of school, this government did nothing. While the children are on the picket lines the government is doing nothing to solve the problem of people who are trying to find a way to do so. The government is advertising, MacMillan Bloedel is advertising and the international community is losing faith in B.C. When is the Premier going to stand up for the people who have a voice and want a decision, not more confrontation?

Hon. M. Harcourt: We have made a decision. I have established the Commission on Resources and Environment. There is an opportunity for the people of Vancouver Island to reach the balance we sought to reach in the Clayoquot. I can say to the people who are standing in front of logging trucks, who are defying the courts and the laws of this province, that I respect the law. The vast majority of our citizens, even though they may not agree with the decision, are prepared to be law-abiding citizens. Those are the British Columbians for whom we are striving to reach a balance with this decision.

B.C. RAIL LABOUR DISPUTE

D. Symons: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The rail strike is now rolling into its second week. Last week the minister said that the outstanding issue was over the cabooses; the union said that it was money. Either way, B.C. Rail is losing $800,000 per day. What steps has your government taken to resolve this labour dispute? Or are we facing the same situation as the teachers' strike in Vancouver?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I am pleased to inform members opposite that the union has requested, through the mediator, that negotiations resume. The corporation has indicated the same willingness. I anticipate that the talks will be back on, either tomorrow or Wednesday.

D. Symons: I am very glad to hear that.

The economic impact of this rail strike is beginning to hurt businesses and jobs throughout the province, particularly in the central region. I ask the Minister of Economic Development: with declining business in B.C., what is your ministry doing to help those affected survive?

BUY B.C. PROGRAM

R. Chisholm: Through you, hon. Speaker, to the Ministry of Agriculture. A few months ago the Agriculture minister attempted to award the advertising contract for the Buy B.C. promotion to an American firm. At first the minister denied any knowledge of this event. Then he assured us that no contract had actually

[ Page 9151 ]

been concluded, and he reopened the bidding. Today, however, we learn that the minister apparently did have a verbal contract with J. Walter Thompson and that he is awarding them substantial compensation. My question to the minister is: will you now confirm that you did in fact have a firm agreement with J. Walter Thompson? Further, what is the value of the compensation being paid to them?

Hon. B. Barlee: No, I did not have an agreement with J. Walter Thompson at any time whatsoever.

R. Chisholm: Unfortunately, Business in Vancouver disagrees with you. Will the minister provide the House with the precise compensation amount payable to J. Walter Thompson as a direct result of his botched awarding of the Buy B.C. advertising contract? I quote from Business in Vancouver magazine.

Hon. B. Barlee: Business in Vancouver is not in this House yet, although it may be soon, and they are not a speaker for this House. Indeed, there was a verbal agreement from one of my staff with J. Walter Thompson. That is not an agreement from the minister. We definitely did not have an agreement.

R. Chisholm: The awarding of the Buy B.C. contract went to Windrim Kleyn and Lim, a firm with extensive ties to the New Democratic Party. Mr. Robert Mitchell, a former NDP provincial secretary and campaign manager, claims: "We won fair and square." Will the minister commit to release the names of the other firms which lost, under his ministry's B.C.-ownership rules, to Windrim Kleyn and Lim?

Hon. B. Barlee: We've had 12 advertising firms doing business with the government of British Columbia. Every one of those advertising firms is a British Columbia company. We like to keep it that way. This is a Victoria firm. Indeed, Mr. Mitchell did business with both governments of the day in the last few years -- and in the last five or six years before I was in the House. I imagine that virtually every advertising company in British Columbia has had business with various political parties in all parts of the province.

B.C. RAIL LABOUR DISPUTE

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. Surely if we learned anything from the last B.C. Rail strike, it is that B.C. Rail is essential to the economy of the northern and central regions of this province. Does the Premier understand that B.C. Rail is essential to the livelihood of many British Columbians in those regions?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes, our government understands the importance of B.C. Rail to the economy of British Columbia very well, particularly to the central and northern parts. That's why we're taking a very balanced and careful approach to this labour-management dispute.

J. Weisgerber: B.C. Rail is just as important to the northern parts of British Columbia as B.C. Ferries is to Vancouver Island. Why won't the Premier decide to designate B.C. Rail as an essential service and protect the interests of northerners in the same way that he would protect the people living on Vancouver Island?

Hon. M. Harcourt: B.C. Rail is capable of making an application to the Labour Relations Board for that designation. I can say that our government realizes that this is a collective bargaining situation. We realize that the previous government understood that sometimes with collective bargaining, there are strikes and lockouts. That's why the previous Social Credit government didn't intervene in any way whatsoever when there was a 25-day B.C. Rail strike during their administration.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 66.

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT

(continued)

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure to rise and continue debate on Bill 66.

The Public Service Act contains some fundamental changes that British Columbians should view with a great deal of concern. For the first time in the history of British Columbia we are prepared to abandon the notion of merit as the underlying principle for employment.

The Speaker: Order. I regret that I am interrupting you, hon. member. I would like the House to come to order so that we can proceed with debate on second reading of Bill 66. Please proceed, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: For the first time in the history of British Columbia, employment in the public service will not be decided primarily on merit but by a series of agenda developed by the government -- by restrictions to access to employment, by employment quotas and by employment equity by legislation -- rather than by a proactive attempt by government to deal with these very real issues in a way that serves those people who should be assisted if they want to work in the public service.

Our difficulty with this bill is that it doesn't embrace the notion that the best way to have an effective, efficient civil service is to hire the most qualified people. This government puts the desire to legislate gender equity into the civil service ahead of merit and qualifications. It tends and seeks to increase the representation of minority groups. As I said last week when I started my comments on this bill, I believe there are better ways to achieve what the government tries to achieve with this legislation.

If the government would focus its attention on making the application process more attractive to minorities, if it would encourage minority groups to seek employment in the civil service, and if it would structure interviews in a way that was supportive to minority groups.... Instead, the government decides to again use the heavy hand of legislation, providing a process that starts to eliminate even the opportunity to contest a position on the basis

[ Page 9152 ]

of gender or some other form of discrimination. This kind of legislation backfires. It has been tried around the world; it has been tried across North America, particularly in the United States, and it does not work. At the end of the day, it is of least service to those it sets out to help.

I believe that the way to help disadvantaged groups is to create an atmosphere that encourages them to come forward and seek employment in the civil service. It's a slow process; it's a much slower process than the legislated route. In the very short term, there is no question that the government will achieve at least some of the goals that it wants to achieve with this legislation, but it won't be a permanent solution. It won't be a good solution, and it won't serve those who might gain some added opportunity to compete for civil service positions.

[2:30]

Our greatest difficulty with this legislation is the incredible amount of authority that it puts in the hands of the commissioner. We're concerned that someone who has been appointed as a commissioner has powers not only to set the rules but to break and change the rules. In fact, this legislation gives the commissioner a free hand to do almost anything he or she wants. We're concerned that perhaps we're going to see Commissioner Pollard reappear in this position.

For the last 18 months, he has been the instrument of patronage appointments; he could very well have written himself a job as commissioner under the Public Service Act. Then we would see a person who could use the legislation and the system to continue the role that he has played so far in government. We don't want to see patronage and government interference go more and more into government service. We have already seen board and commission appointments and appointments to senior positions in the civil service significantly affected by Mr. Pollard.

We've seen appointments at the highest level that are ideologically driven.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The Minister of Finance says: "You guys never did that." I want to tell you that if the government can come up with an appointment that comes within light years of the appointment of Maureen Maloney as Deputy Attorney General, who is the highest lawmaker in the land.... She is someone with an ideological bent, hired on contract to advise the government on budgets and, I believe, the author of the attack on home ownership in British Columbia. Such an appointment to Deputy Attorney General is an issue of real concern, and it's an issue of concern to a lot more people than those who are partisan.

British Columbians look at those appointments, and they understand what's happening in the civil service.

They look at this legislation, and they recognize the potential to move appointments from the OIC level to appointments throughout the civil service. The commissioner has far more power than anyone should have, controlling employment opportunities for individuals in the province. British Columbia, first of all, deserves to have a civil service staffed with the best qualified people available. The first consideration always has to be the qualifications and the ability of the people applying for the job. Promotions should be made on the basis of merit.

There can't be any other system that serves both the staff and the people who are served -- the taxpayers of British Columbia. As we look back on this session and at the legislation that was brought in this year that affects British Columbians in a fundamental way, one of the bills that will go down as a significant change of public policy has to be this legislation, which moves employment in the civil service away from the basic notion of merit to some predetermined agenda of the government and the commissioner that really undermines the whole premise of an effective, focused civil service.

I don't think you can feel comfortable working in an atmosphere, knowing that some people are hired and promoted on merit and that others are there because of their gender, the colour of their skin or some other visible identification. People don't want to be hired because of the colour of their skin or because of their gender. Indeed, one of the difficulties in determining the number of aboriginal people in the civil service over the years has been the unwillingness of people in the civil service to identify themselves on the basis of ethnic background, race or colour. People want to be hired for who they are and for the abilities they have.

It has been demonstrated a number of times in government that with focus, enthusiasm and determination, you can significantly increase the participation of various groups in the makeup of this service. It should be done in a way that encourages that participation and brings down the obstacles that people find in the application and interview process. Those should never become paramount to merit. People should be hired and promoted on the basis of their abilities. Taxpayers should know that the people they are hiring are the best-qualified for the job.

I am very much opposed to this piece of legislation. I think it goes to the heart of the difference between the Social Credit caucus and the NDP caucus. There are some very fundamental differences, and I'm quite prepared to stand and defend the position that I take, that I have taken and that I will continue to take. That position is clearly opposed to this kind of legislated solution to social problems. I think it's a bad approach that shows the inability of ministers like the Minister of Women's Equality, who has had 18 months to deal with these issues within government.

Instead, she has embraced this kind of legislated solution rather than find ways to deal with the core problems and the underlining issues. That's what is important for society. We either have to resolve these kinds of issues in government by example or we have to be prepared to extend this legislation beyond the civil service to the private sector.

I'm not sure that there are many, if any, people working in the private sector or employers in the private sector who would like to have this legislation extended to them. It's a test of this legislation for people outside the civil service and outside government to decide whether or not they like this kind of legislation. My challenge to workers and employers is to look at

[ Page 9153 ]

this legislation and see whether or not those people in the private sector would be comfortable with these regulations and constraints in their workplace. What's good for the government should be good for all British Columbians. If it won't work in the private sector, it shouldn't work in the public sector.

I am solidly, fundamentally opposed to the principles of this legislation. I will be voting against it, and I will try,

section by section, to amend the most onerous parts of this legislation.

F. Gingell: I think we have to start at the beginning. Bill 66 is the child of the Korbin commission, and the Korbin commission started off on the wrong foot. Surely this government clearly recognized the problem that British Columbians have: we simply cannot continue, year after year, to increase the portion of our gross provincial product that is spent by the provincial government to deliver the services that British Columbians need. We have to find more effective and efficient ways of delivering government services. But that was not the job or part of the mandate of the Korbin commission, so it started off on the wrong foot.

The other foot was wrong, too. The commissioner was employed at a rate of $1,200 a day plus expenses. A fairly normal work year is about 225 days. At $1,200 a day, that comes to $270,000 -- more than a quarter of a million dollars, more than double the rate of pay of the most senior deputy minister of this government. This government fails to understand what ordinary British....

The Speaker: The hon. member for Prince George-Omineca on a point of order.

L. Fox: I hesitate to interrupt the speaker, but I have noticed that there is not a quorum in the House.

The Speaker: The member is quite correct.

There is now a quorum, hon. member, if you would like to continue with debate.

F. Gingell: If one can remember that far back, I was on the issue of where the problems are, what this government should have done and what they haven't done. Just to briefly cover what they haven't done, they didn't allow the Korbin commission to deal with the issue of the size of the bureaucracy. They didn't allow the Korbin commission to deal with how we find means of delivering government services without, as always, continuing to increase the size of the bureaucracy. The $1,200 a day -- equivalent to $270,000 a year -- plus expenses turns British Columbians off.

This government continually spoke about the need for common sense, restraint and not spending a penny they don't have. They gave a mandate to the commission that was wrong, and they entered into a compensation package that we all believe is not far short of obscene.

What has the Korbin commission done? It made recommendations in the field of employment equity and said that this province had to change the way things were done in the past. There was a time when the way you became part of the civil service was to work for a political party, hope that that political party would be elected to office and you would then get your rewards as part of that system. That is a well-known system in places like Chicago, where that kind of arrangement has been well known and part of the system for many years.

[2:45]

Early in the development of British Columbia, the government made a decision that hiring within the provincial civil service should be done on the basis of merit, and everybody supports that merit is the only way that these positions should be filled. We all believe in employment equity. I don't think that anybody who thinks about the subject doesn't realize that there has to be equity for all British Columbians to have the opportunity, if they so wish, to be employed in the provincial bureaucracy. But you cannot accomplish that by passing legislation. It is something that you can accomplish only by reducing barriers.

I know that we are all concerned and fed up with the systematic discrimination against certain members of our society who don't have the opportunity to participate in these roles and in this fashion, not because of lack of merit, but simply because of discrimination. Without question, it is time to get rid of the old boys' club. Without question, it is time to take a sledge hammer to the glass ceiling. But you can't create equity by legislation; you have to do it by encouragement. You can't eliminate prejudice by legislation; it has to start in our homes with the children.

This bill speaks about creating a civil service in British Columbia that represents its diversity. How do we describe that diversity? This bill has in no way stated the particular styles or types of diversity that are going to be recognized. We all recognize that there are some that obviously get included: racial, gender and the handicapped. But will it include demographics? Will we need to employ a certain number of people who live in a certain part of the province? What happens when those people move from that area to areas that are overrepresented in the bureaucracy?

Surely those kinds of changes take place as the government, in their wisdom and in a manner that we support, ensures that provincial government services are delivered -- as we're fond of saying -- closer to home. Those kinds of changes in government practices, in the means of delivering government services, will have their own positive results in dealing with that issue.

We talk about gender. Will this also include sexual preference? I'm sure we talk about colour of skin. Are

[ Page 9154 ]

we going to also talk about colour of hair and colour of eyes? There is a whole series of issues that really do need to be dealt with. Before they bring in legislation of this type, the government should clearly enunciate and elucidate the way they intend to interpret the legislation and administer it.

There are some other issues here, and they deal with such things as tenure. I appreciate that union negotiations between the province and their unions have brought in tenure. I don't think anybody on either side of the House is in any way concerned or believes that there should be changes which could cause a change in government to alter the makeup of the bureaucracy, other than those senior positions that have clearly been filled -- and understandably so, on many occasions -- on the basis of political qualifications as well as others.

For people presently employed by the government, this bill provides a somewhat different position from that of any other British Columbian applying for a different job within government. In this bill, methods are brought into play by which individuals can appeal the decisions that are made by government in the hiring process. Can all British Columbians appeal? Oh, no. Only people who are presently members of the public service can appeal.

They are going to be treated in a different fashion for a brand-new position -- something to which I don't believe they necessarily have any predisposed rights -- by a means and a method that another British Columbian is barred from. The civil servant has the right to a hearing; the British Columbian who is not presently employed by the provincial government has only the right to ask questions, not to appeal. I think that is taking tenure too far. All British Columbians should be treated equally and should have equal rights.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: If the member wishes to say that I should be sitting in his seat, it is a matter of.... I thought it was the member for Mission-Kent.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: It is offered.

We also have to deal with the powers and the mandate of the commissioner, who is given a major role in the process of employment equity. The commissioner is not only given the responsibility of developing the plan of action but also the responsibility for implementing it. The commissioner is also given the power and responsibility for all negotiations between the provincial government and its direct employees. It is important that these particular functions be handled in a manner that is seen to be open and fair, subject to reasonable assurance that they are being handled in a open and forthright manner. I'm not certain that that is going to be the result of this particular bill.

In the end, what is the issue? There are some subsidiary issues to do with the costs and mandate of the Korbin commission and with auxiliary employees and tenure. The main issue in this bill is whether the prime philosophy or tenet of hiring civil servants in this province -- which for many years has been merit alone and has been supported by all sides of this House -- be changed to bring in a social engineering exercise in which there is a determined effort to ensure that the best person does not necessarily get the job; instead it will be someone who fits a particular pattern.

I don't care who issues my driver's licence; I don't care who I deal with in any division of government, as long as I have the certainty that a proper, fair and open process has determined that the person hired for the job deserved it. That is the most important issue in this bill.

I certainly hope that the debate that takes place from this point on will encourage the minister to think about this sufficiently to decide to withdraw the bill from active consideration at this time and allow some input from the rest of the province -- all of the diverse groups that make up our population -- and see the wisdom in allowing some time to pass so that further consultation can take place.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I ask like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I noticed in the gallery Harvey Arcand, vice-president of the IWA-Canada. He is here for meetings concerning his workers. I would like the House to make him welcome.

[3:00]

V. Anderson: Bill 66 brings before us a conundrum, because we need to revise the manner in which hiring takes place within the public service. I think there is general agreement that we need revision. It needs to be updated, and it needs to be fair and equal for all people. The purpose of the act, as stated within its clause, is to make sure that people are hired on their merit. But as you go through the act, you are not sure that that purpose is being fulfilled.

One of the realities is that all of the people of the province who have equal merit have not sensed that they have equal opportunity to be hired in our public service. So we need to overcome the bias which has been present so that everyone of equal merit can have equal opportunity within the service.

I don't hear anyone saying that we should be hiring people for a job who have less merit than someone else who is available. But I do hear them saying that there should be equal opportunity for everyone. One of the indications is that there is a strong feeling that those doing the hiring are hiring unequally; that those doing the hiring are not giving everybody an equal opportunity. We need to correct those persons so that they give everyone an equal opportunity and nobody is prevented, because of a bias of the hiring person, from having an equal chance to be heard and to present themselves.

[U. Dosanjh in the chair.]

Instead of putting the onus where it should be and ensuring that people who are doing the hiring do it equally, we seem to be putting the onus on the person

[ Page 9155 ]

who is coming to be hired to somehow demonstrate that they have an equal, if not better, contribution to make than others. The process itself needs to be changed, but I'm not sure that it should be changed in the way that this bill indicates.

As you go through the bill, you see contradictions. On one hand, it says that there should be hiring on the basis of merit. On the other, it says that there should be hiring not on the basis of merit but on the basis of equity throughout the population. It goes on to say that if a person comes forward and has the merit and is not hired, they can appeal. If they had been hired on the basis of equity rather than merit, in the final analysis there is no opportunity within this bill as it is written to question the validity of that equity hiring, because the appeal can only be based on merit. We have an undercurrent flowing here which gives an uncertainty to the whole process.

It is my experience that those who might be hired because of their equity position, or lack of it, do not want to be hired primarily because of characteristics other than their ability to do the job, because this does not respect them for the kind of person they are. Rather, this is token representation and a system of token hiring. It demeans the position of those who are hired. We do not want to correct one inadequacy by creating a second one. Acknowledging that the present system does not work as it might, we should not correct it by putting in a system which is equally wrong.

One of the historic realities of the political system, and unfortunately a part of the history of all of the parties within this country, is that when governments changed, people were changed -- not because of their merit but simply because they didn't have the correct political point of view. Nowhere in this act is that kind of change prevented. I remember that whenever there was an election in the prairies, if the people in the local communities happened to belong to the wrong political party, they were fired -- even the managers and employees of the local liquor store.

I must acknowledge that it was a shock to people when the CCF was elected for the first time in Saskatchewan, and these people were not fired. They were maintained in their jobs; they were not removed because of their political persuasion. Unfortunately, over the years that tradition has not maintained itself within the CCF or the NDP any more than in other parties.

We're trying to get back to a position where people feel that the hiring practices of the government are fair and equal for everyone. That is not necessarily the kind of fairness we see reflected in this bill. It's not only important that the bill is fair but that it seems to be fair to all people in society. If we remove one type of discrimination, which we all acknowledge is there, and replace it with legislated discrimination, we have only changed one discrimination for another. We have not improved the situation.

It also means that it is up to the persons who are hiring to judge, according to their own whims and biases, what form of discrimination should be undertaken at any particular point in time. That form of discrimination can change radically if it's left in that fluid state.

We need to review the concerns about the bill and the manner in which they are presented. While we heartily agree that everyone should be hired on merit, and it should be open equally to people of both genders and every background, race, colour and nationality, we must look not only into this bill itself but into the functioning of government. We must ask ourselves: is there equal opportunity and education in all of these different facets of government? Is there equal opportunity for skills training? Is there equal opportunity in testing? Is there equal opportunity for these people to speak in their own language and show the real merit of the skills that they have?

A whole host of concerns are not addressed but are simply implied in this bill. It is left up to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make the regulations. Even where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make appointments of a special nature, the requirements of either merit or equity are not necessarily in place. This bill lacks clarity as to its intended direction. Therefore we will review it carefully in committee stage. We agree on the merit principle. We agree that everyone should have equal opportunity, but the process by which it is assured is not necessarily a legalized process.

It has to be one where everybody has equal access, equal opportunity, equal education and equal privilege.

H. De Jong: It gives me pleasure to rise and speak on Bill 66. The opposition obviously cannot go along with the position government is taking with this bill and the road it wants to follow.

This is not a forward-looking bill. It may be a bill to justify some of the current actions of this government. We've gone through a number of bills that have dealt with employment standards and changes to the Labour Code. When we look at all of these bills, it would appear that some had a few good suggestions and others did not.

This particular bill may well fly right in the face of some of the ideals that have been brought forth -- for instance, in the Employment Standards Act. Normally, when we look at the process of hiring people, what's usually asked for is the type of education, qualifications and experience the person has. Those are the three basic ingredients we look for. If they have those three ingredients then past experience comes very much into play.

Not everyone has work experience. This bill is silent on that aspect, and that surprises me. People perhaps have the education and through that education may have certain qualifications, but they have not been able to have that work experience that's so often looked for and so important. Yet this bill says nothing about that particular situation.

This bill talks about gender equality, having people in certain jobs equal in numbers and so on. This bill doesn't specifically talk about it, but this is a follow-up to bills we've had on this floor during the session before. It's a continuation of what I see as an unnecessary buildup of bureaucracy dealing with a number of issues that can hardly be justified. When we talk about hiring people who are less than qualified,

[ Page 9156 ]

simply because of race or gender or whatever it may be, how is the employer going to deal with those situations when the person does not meet the requirements of the job? I'm sure that any employer, whether public or private, will have great difficulty if he uses one set of rules on one end of the spectrum, and then at the end he has to use rules from a different book to deal with the firing of such a person. I think there has be some commonality between the areas under which a person is hired and how he or she can be fired. That is not in this bill.

[3:15]

It's really a very fair and simple process, to begin with, to go through the hiring process. I think it would be best, rather than playing games with a maze of regulations -- what we have in this bill -- if the government were to at this time admit that they had made some mistakes. Before it passes through the House, British Columbians already know that this bill is a mistake. It simply won't work. The fairest way to hire people is to ensure that the most qualified applicant gets the job. The best way to build an efficient public service is to ensure that it employs the best people possible.

The best way to assist the disadvantaged groups is to help them with training and education. As I said earlier, perhaps there could be something given to those who have had their training and thereby have some qualifications but no experience yet. There could be something there. A younger person coming out of college, university or whatever level of education the job required would have a helping hand to get into the job in order to acquire some experience. But the bill is absolutely silent on that. It talks about race and gender as the most important criteria, and that is not so.

We already have some indication of where the government has spent a lot of money -- various commissions, corporations and so on -- yet without much result. In fact, a couple of weeks ago I asked the Minister of Environment whether any work could be done on the Chilliwack River. The answer was a simple no because of lack of funding. Then you wonder, with a budget higher than in any other year, why some of those important things cannot be done. Yet we can set up another bureaucracy under this bill to deal with what I call an unfair set of rules for hiring practices.

We've seen the creation of a highways Crown corporation to build highways. All the money that is collected from the taxpayers of British Columbia is being used to further more commissions, more Crown corporations and more bureaucracy, yet in the end it's unfair bureaucracy, because it does not deal fairly with the individual who is being hired. If the people who do the hiring do so on the basis of this bill, they will have great difficulty in living within the confines of the Employment Standards Act, should they ever have to fire the same person they hired under the regulations set forth in this bill.

K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise and speak on second reading of Bill 66, the Public Service Act. This is a very important act that will really change the scope -- at least that's what the government says -- of the civil service. We've spent almost $1.5 million on the study that has gone into this. A year of effort has gone into it with input from people throughout the civil service and the public and private sectors. A lot of effort was involved, and this bill is the culmination of that in attempting to bring it to legislation.

There is an area that doesn't seem to be well covered, which is what I want to speak to. I want to speak to the case of the real working people in the public service: the individuals who provide all of the day-to-day services of government -- the contribution and the research -- and who bring their special talents to the whole operation of government in its broadest sense. It affects us in every part of our lives in this province. These are the people who determine whether you get a driver's licence.

They ensure that your taxes are properly handled, your complaints are dealt with through the ombudsman or the ombudsman's staff, and that legislation is properly done -- with thoroughness and with a fairness that makes the government look good. I'm sure that the government would be very concerned if that were not the case.

I want to talk about the people who used to be called public servants, because that's what the public service is really about: being a servant to one another and to the people of British Columbia. Here in this House we are also servants to the people of British Columbia and to those people in the public service. We are working for them and they are working for us. It is important that we build a structure that will allow that to occur.

In this bill we note various things, such as the establishment of a Public Service Employee Relations Commission, an appeals process and a process for hiring. They are all very important, and most of those have been spoken to by my colleagues. We have some areas of concern in regard to some of them. One that I'm deeply concerned about -- and it seems to be somewhat lacking in this -- is what there is in this bill to build that concept of public service.

What is in this bill to encourage the person who has been with the government at some level of operation for ten years, and who is wondering about where they're going in the future? Where is their future? What chances do they have? What is in this bill to create an incentive to provide service? What is in this bill to build morale in the public service?

Interjection.

K. Jones: I hear from my colleague that the answer is "nothing." I think we have to admit that. That is a very big, gaping hole in this bill. There is nothing here to address the fundamental things that make a public service. It talks about the peripheral, but it doesn't talk about the substance of what makes a good, solid public service. What is in this bill to encourage leadership? What is in this bill to provide effectiveness? What is in this bill to help members of the public service give value for money or be accountable?

What is in the bill to identify a process for them to carry on their functions, and to grow in those functions, with the desire to be more and more effective and accountable in utilizing the taxpayers' money?

[ Page 9157 ]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

We have a bill that relates to many features of the structure, but it has really nothing in the way of substance that is going to change the public service. We spent the past year with this whole process of the Korbin commission in an attempt to create a new public service and a new effectiveness in government, one that is going to be serving and exciting the people of this province, and one that is excited itself. Unless they are excited about their jobs, they will never excite the rest of the province.

They will not provide the drive and initiative that will bring this province into an economic renaissance, a changing period that we right now are desperately needing when we are going down and down, following the Ontario model of socialism. We have to do something about that, and we have to do it today to get this turned around. We have to build an economy and a workforce, and we have to provide the education for our children and adults that will make it possible for this growth to occur.

Bill 66 could have all that potential in it. I would hope that it could be made such that it would have that potential in it. Otherwise, it is a very hollow bill, a shell that was not easy to put together, yet one that with a little more effort could be much more effective. We have concerns, as we have mentioned before, about the fact that in the appeals process of this bill, people who are employees of the government but are only on an acting or part-time basis are not able to appeal when they feel that the processes of promotion, hiring or treatment are unfair.

These people are treated as if they don't have proper representation. The same goes for people who are newly applying to be part of the government. Those people should also be treated fairly and have the opportunity of an appeals process that is open to all who apply for the job. Why should only those people who have permanent jobs with the public service be eligible to appeal? It just doesn't seem fair. It is very discriminatory, in my thinking.

[3:30]

This bill needs some serious changing, and I would certainly urge the minister to take it back to give it the consideration it needs if it is to be more effective. It needs to have more substance in it and a focus on the real purpose and problems facing those in the public service today. There are problems under the equity program that will leave them stagnant in their jobs. They are concerned that they will have no hope for future advancement if they don't fit into the categories of the special considerations for equity hiring or promotions.

The same problems that exist today will be there -- the training programs, the personal development and professional development programs that are always promised but are never brought forward. They never succeed. They never give the people the ability to advance themselves, because the programs are there in words but not in deed. We have a great need -- and a great opportunity in this bill -- to do something to restructure and give new impetus to our public service, but this bill does not do that.

Hon. P. Priddy: I am very pleased today to rise in support of Bill 66. This bill is about our government's commitment to doing something about the public service and the many and varied issues that we face. One of the key issues in the B.C. public service is that after 20 years of Social Credit government, we had an abysmal record in the hiring and promotion of women, visible minorities, aboriginal people and people with disabilities.

Not only that, the record of the previous government's response to including women and other equality-seeking groups in areas where they were in complete control of the opportunities was horrendous. Our government is making a real difference. We're making certain that the many skills of women and men, aboriginal people, people from visible minorities and people with disabilities, are part of the agencies, boards and commissions that guide this government -- something that the Social Credit government was able to do and absolutely did not do. It took no opportunity to make that difference.

In addition, I heard the Leader of the Third Party say that there has been no change in the last 18 months for women working in this government. The percentage increase of women working for this government has increased in every single management-level position. That's action at every management level.

I'd like to remind hon. members that this legislation does not in any way change what options government has as an employer. The Human Rights Act already says that employers can take action to ensure that employment equity, fairness and equality are part of the hiring and promotion process. When that amendment to ensure fairness and equity in employment was before this House last year, not one member of the opposition stood up and spoke against it, so I am somewhat puzzled by the change in position. This act simply gives employment equity a new home in the Public Service Commission -- renewal of the public service in British Columbia.

I am really deeply troubled when I hear members of the opposition describe the provisions of this bill, which tell us that employment equity should be part of our consideration in hiring and promotion in the public service, as patronizing. What is patronizing is not listening to the concerns of all of those people who have been excluded from opportunities within government for too long. What is patronizing is the previous administration's sit-back-and-wait attitude, with no commitment to reach out to all of the people of this province.

What is patronizing is an opposition that continues to speak out about a process that they said they agreed with when they were the government. I refer you to the position taken by the Social Credit government in 1991, when they said that the province of British Columbia would hire on the basis of employment equity. That's what we're doing.

What is patronizing is an opposition that can't bring itself to support a statement of principle accepted across Canada by governments, corporations like the Royal Bank, communities and individuals as an essential principle to making our workplaces fair and just for all Canadians.

[ Page 9158 ]

The Royal Bank, an esteemed institution in our country, states in response to an

article in the Financial Post, "There's Nothing 'Fair' About Hiring Quotas":

"As a society, we have an obligation, for social as well as business reasons, to achieve greater employment equity. We have reasons in business to move forward with employment equity. The fabric of our society depends on it. The calibre of our workforce is bound to improve as we open our doors to all the talented applicants from all cultures and all walks of life."

If the opposition supports the principle of fairness in hiring, they should support the bill. If they don't support fairness and equality in hiring, then they should come out and say so, not sit up and say: "We just don't like fairness when it's in a bill." What is deeply troubling is the opposition's repeated suggestion that no women, aboriginal people, visible minorities or people with disabilities are qualified to work for the government of this province.

The Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. member for Okanagan West.

C. Serwa: The minister is clearly reading from a prepared speech. Under the standing orders of this Legislature, that is not allowed. It's a latitude certainly licensed for an initial speech in the Legislature, but reading from a prepared text is not allowed under standing orders.

The Speaker: Thank you for your point of order, hon. member. However, it is the practice of this House to allow copious notes during debate.

C. Serwa: Carry on reading, people.

Hon. P. Priddy: It is offensive, when people speak of more women, aboriginal people and people with disabilities who may work for this government, if the first response is: but what about merit? It's offensive to me and, quite frankly, to the people I stand beside in this province who have ever applied for a job with this government and were denied opportunities for reasons unrelated to their ability to do the job. Let me tell you, there have been more than a few people in that position.

The opposition would like all of us to think that somehow it's just enough; there aren't enough women or people with disabilities with the right kinds of skills, and that's why we seem to have this little problem with hiring and promoting people from equality-seeking groups. I'm here to tell the Legislature that that is just not the case.

Unlike the opposition, I am willing to admit that we have not done very well in the past, and that some extraordinary barriers have excluded some very valuable people from serving the people of this province. They've been excluded by a variety of practices held for a very long time to be acceptable -- practices which have meant, more than anything, that for the most part government continues to hire and promote people just like the ones already there.

We do -- and can do -- many things as an employer to help eliminate these barriers and to help all individuals in this province have an opportunity to work with this government. We can and will spend time with organizations talking about what kinds of opportunities might be available, what kinds of skills might be required for those jobs, how to apply, how the selection process works, where people can get information about how the ministries work and how they can access government postings. We can advertise differently. We can ask ourselves to focus on the skills we're looking for, not just the credentials.

With all due respect to the provincewide newspapers, we can make sure that we advertise more widely than in just the Province and the Sun. We may want to target aboriginal newspapers, community newspapers, newspapers for multicultural groups and newspapers representing people with disabilities.

Let me offer you a comparison. One way of describing a position is: "Policy analyst -- university degree with five years' experience in developing policy. Driver's licence required." A second way of phrasing it is: "Policy analyst -- ability to research, synthesize, analyze and write policy and procedure documents. Related education, training or experience required, and an ability to visit branch office in the downtown core." These two advertisements describe the same job, but only the second one tells everyone clearly what skills the successful applicant will bring to the job on day one.

It's about competency, not about degrees; it's about scope of experience, not just the number of years. Of course people need qualifications and skills. This government hires people based on merit. As a government we want people to do the very best job for this province, and this involves looking at a range of ways in which we describe a job.

We talk about having interview panels that include people from the community: people from visible-minority communities, aboriginal people and people with disabilities. For many of us, there's nothing more intimidating than a panel interview. Are you really seeing someone at their best when they don't see themselves as part of the panel? We can improve communications a hundredfold by simply having someone on the panel who has experienced the government from the perspective of the person from an equality-seeking group who is being interviewed.

Sometimes the biggest barrier to including women and other equality-seeking groups is the simple fact that they're not there. When you have taken all sorts of measures to invite applications, to recruit applicants from equality-seeking groups, to advertise differently and to panel more fairly, you may be well on your wa18to seeing more women, more aboriginal people and more people with disabilities in the workplace and in higher-paying positions with different levels of responsibility. But you may also find that there is still no difference, that there is something else that is keeping people out.

Take, for example, the case of a program manager with the Ministry of Social Services. The government wanted to make sure that services for aboriginal people were closer to aboriginal people in their communities, and that the process worked in a way that was sensitive to aboriginal cultures. We recognized that this issue meant making sure that an aboriginal person was the

[ Page 9159 ]

person to do that job, because of what they brought. It's not quotas; it's not reverse discrimination; it's a fair and equitable way to help create opportunities for people who have been excluded for too long and to ensure that our services are effective. Quite frankly, it helps to put merit back into the merit principle, because it defines merit as truly what you know, and it gives people the opportunity to show it in an environment that is inclusive, safe and fair for everyone.

While I'm certainly troubled by the third party speaking against this, I'm also somewhat puzzled, because I have heard the Leader of the Third Party speak with some pride -- as he and his party should -- about the number of aboriginal people who had been hired by the previous government. Let me refer to some of those positions that the Social Credit opposition is so proud of. One of them was a restricted competition for an entry-level management-bridging position for an aboriginal person in the finance and administration branch.

There were others: Ministry of Education, one management level 1 position, restricted to women; Environment, three training positions, restricted to aboriginal people; Native Affairs, four management level 2 positions, restricted to aboriginal people; Parks, 12 officers and first-line supervisor-level positions, restricted to all four equity groups; Solicitor General, 11 management and senior support-level positions, restricted to women; Social Services and Housing, one supervisor and six social worker positions, with preference given to aboriginal people, in the native family and child services unit.

Just to be sure that we don't leave anybody out, the last one is the Ministry of Transportation and Highways: six bridging positions, for women only. I am delighted that the Social Credit opposition was able to take those actions. But let us be very sure that those were done for the reason we speak of here today: to ensure opportunities for people who have traditionally been excluded from government.

[3:45]

We all know that there are stairs which we climb when we go through a hiring process, and it's a difficult climb for everyone. We search the advertisements in the newspaper or somewhere else. We work out our r�sum� to meet the qualifications. We go in for the interview. We write a test. We sit across from a panel of people who ask us some pretty tough questions about our knowledge of the government and the job. If we are chosen as a successful candidate, our references are checked.

If you have cerebral palsy, and perhaps live your life in an electric wheelchair, or have some motor difficulty, it may take you longer than 24 hours to write or type the test that you've been given -- albeit that typing out the information is potentially not any kind of qualification or requirement for the job for which you're applying. If you studied criminology in another country like India or Australia, your experience -- not your degree -- may not be credited here. Women with children may find it difficult to arrange overnight child care to come to Victoria for an interview. All of these are barriers that we as a government have an obligation to remove.

I don't see, as the opposition seems to, anything patronizing about that at all. British Columbians have a right to know that their government is making every effort to ensure that they and their families have access to services and opportunities without being discriminated against because of their aboriginal heritage, disability, race or gender. This government is indeed acting on that commitment in its day-to-day practices, as and in the manner that the Leader of the Third Party suggested we should.

I can only assume that the Leader of Third Party resents that this commitment is being given a home and an authority by legislation. He is perhaps worried that in the unlikely event his party ever returns to this side of the House, he wouldn't so easily be able to back away from that particular promise, which includes all British Columbians as part of this government.

Many individuals have spoken strongly against being excluded, and they have indicated that they look forward to measures that will include them. Employment equity is simply one of those measures. The opposition may be willing to ignore them. I am not, and this government is not.

J. Tyabji: I'm happy to follow the Minister of Women's Equality. There has been a lot of talk in this debate about patronizing attitudes and the kinds of approaches that have been taken on one side of the bill or the other. If we can put that aside for a minute.... Rather than name-calling, let's look at the philosophical differences between the Liberal opposition and the government. The Minister of Women's Equality said that Bill 66 is a statement of principle. I disagree with that. This is not a statement of principle so much as affirmative action legislation.

If one subscribes to the philosophy of affirmative action, then I can imagine that the government would be very proud of this bill. On this side, we subscribe to ending discrimination. So when the Minister of Women's Equality stands up and says, "Those groups that have been excluded must be included," we agree. But how do we do that? It's a matter of process, approach and the basic philosophies involved.

You can't look at Bill 66, the Public Service Act, without looking at Bill 39, the Multiculturalism Act. In Bill 66, we see a key word when talking about how hiring practices must be representative of the diversity of British Columbia. "Diversity" is not defined in the bill. Where do we see "diversity" -- not defined, but at least made reference to -- in another bill? In the Multiculturalism Act. We see there that "diversity" of British Columbians is regarding race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry and place of origin. We know that gender is addressed in one of the other bills.

When we talk about diversity, one of the purposes of this act is to be a hiring code that recruits and develops a well-qualified and efficient public service representative of diversity; and we go further in the bill and see that it talks about the principle of merit -- and merit seems to be the word that the government is focusing on -- as being tied to eligibility. The eligibility of the applicants is the first classification, the first hoop, that they go through, before they go through the hoop of merit.

[ Page 9160 ]

Who is an eligible applicant? Someone who fits the definition of diversity in the Multiculturalism Act. If one subscribes, as the government does, to affirmative action, a quota system in the short-term to address past inequities, then one would be very happy with this.

Let me lay out for the Minister of Women's Equality why the Liberal opposition is opposed to this approach -- not the objective, because we share the objective; we very much want to see a hiring practice that will be representative of the people. If the Minister of Women's Equality is aware of some of the affirmative action legislation that has occurred in other jurisdictions, most notably the affirmative action programs in the United States, and the backlash that has occurred....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The minister is saying those are quotas. That's true; there are quotas there. To a large extent, what anyone deals with.... I happen to be someone who fits the definition of diversity on two counts -- maybe three, if we take being a single mother into account.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: I see that one of the hon. members down there wants to get in on the debate; I hope that he does.

In principle, the reason my colleagues and I cannot support this bill is that when you bring in affirmative action, whether it be quotas, as was done in the United States, or whether it be the perception of quotas, as is done in this bill -- because of the Multiculturalism Act and the rhetoric of the government talking about the need to have representations that address past inequities -- as soon as you get those statements about past inequities, which we all know, going forward into the hiring practice, you're going to get the perception of a grudge match and a great movement forward to make up for what happened in the past by going too far the other way.

When eligibility is the prerequisite before merit....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The member for Yale-Lillooet is asking what my position is. Let me be on the record: I am opposed to affirmative action legislation like this. I have been since the day of the election. This has been something the government has a hard time understanding from the Liberal caucus. I encourage these members to please get up and debate when I'm finished.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. I'm sure all members who wish to can enter into the debate, but at this time the Chair has recognized the member for Okanagan East.

J. Tyabji: I think I must be hitting a nerve if they are getting so upset. I hear them asking repeatedly what I would do. I'm assuming they are asking what the Liberal opposition would do if we were in government, what principles guide us and how they would be brought forward in legislation. We had very much the same debate when we debated the human rights amendments that came forward. We share many of the same objectives. In fact, I have a friend who says that the NDP are the Liberals in a hurry. What we end up getting is very bad legislation -- from this philosophical perspective, at any rate.

The legislation speeds the process up to such an extent that there are basically side effects. For example, we have restrictions on individual rights and on the equality principles that should govern all of us. You end up creating de facto barriers to other people.

To give a very concrete example, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, our own leader in his own riding, was dealing with a situation -- in a hiring practice for this government -- where an aboriginal woman was asked for. There wasn't anyone who was able to fit the bill. So they had to go further afield, until they are now canvassing bands somewhere else. Meanwhile, there are about 60 unemployed people in that riding who could do the job, but can't get the job, because they don't fulfil the parameters of the quota system.

Although the minister says it's not a quota system, that seems to me to be a quota, because we are talking about eligibility before merit -- when there isn't anyone who is eligible, we go far afield to find someone who is, provided they have the merit requirements. Everyone in the community knows that is going on, because they talk about it. They or someone they know, or their brother or sister, really needed that job and couldn't get it on the basis of their race or gender, and that's discrimination.

No matter how you slice it, that's discrimination, and that's where you get a backlash; that's where you get people saying that that's not fair.

Many of us have lived through discrimination, through unfair hiring practices or people who treat us differently because of our gender, age or ethnicity. When we get into a position of power, we can't legislate things so that those very people who acted this way toward us are now in a position where they have these discriminations visited upon them. It doesn't make any sense. You just end up breeding hostility and ending up with people wanting a backlash.

I just want to end this look at Bill 66 with a couple of points about the merit

section of the bill where we talk about the eligibility of the applicants. When we say "the nature of the duties," what else will merit be determined on? And the eligibility isn't outlined. When we talk about the education, skills, knowledge, experience.... With respect to eligibility, we have to look at the diversity, which means the Multiculturalism Act and the gender quotas.

In addition to that, under the merit section, we see that in

section 8(4) it says: "Subject to the regulations, the commissioner may direct in respect of a vacancy or class of vacancies...that applicants be (

a) limited or given preference in a manner intended to achieve employment equity objectives...." Philosophically, we on this side cannot support that. Although we support the objective, we can't support legislation that brings in affirmative action.

The second thing is: "...(

b) limited to employees to encourage career development and advancement...."

[ Page 9161 ]

They are saying that the commissioner may limit the pool of applicants. Once you limit the pool of applicants, all the people who have been excluded will say: "I have been excluded." We end up exactly where we are right now with a group of people saying: "Because of the system we are being excluded; this is not fair." When we get to the point where we see the regulations in print, I don't even know whether that is consistent with the Charter of Rights. When Bill 66 becomes legislation, will we end up...?

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: No. The member for Yale-Lillooet is asking me.... I am saying that this legislation -- if we are discriminating or giving preference on the basis of race or gender -- is probably going to end up being challenged under the Charter of Rights, and the province of British Columbia will have to enact our own notwithstanding clause in order to champion this. I would predict that this government will be quite happy to enact a notwithstanding clause in order to bring about their affirmative action programs.

With the prediction that we will end up with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenge at some point, which I think would be contrary to the objectives of the bill, which we support -- the objectives but not the mechanism -- I would only say to the government that although I think their goals are laudable, this is the wrong way to do it. With that, I cannot support this bill.

R. Neufeld: I stand to speak to the philosophy and principles of Bill 66. Much of what is in the bill has already been spoken about, so I don't intend to take a long time. Rather than read from my notes, I'll use the bill itself and go

section by section, some of which I find very interesting. I'm going to start out with

section 4 of Bill 66 and what it speaks about: the philosophy and principles of this bill. I don't know how else I can do it other than with the legislation in hand. It talks about a commission and what the commission does and doesn't have to do. It says that "the commission must consult with representatives of the employees' bargaining agents certified under the Public Service Labour Relations Act with respect to..." -- and then it talks about things it has to consult on. But what the bill fails to do -- and that's to satisfy the BCGEU and those unions....

[4:00]

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Yes, and I'm going to go there a little further along. The minister says that's there now.

What it says a little further down, which I'm using to offset it, is: "In addition, the commission may" -- there are two totally different words there: "must" consult and "may" consult -- "consult with employees who are not represented by the bargaining agents...." I find it interesting that in one place it says that the commission must consult with the bargaining agent and in another other place it says that the commission "may" consult with those who are not in the union. "Consult" is even described in this legislation: "In this

section 'consult' means seeking advice or an exchange of views or concerns prior to the making of a decision...." So we know what "consult" means, according to this legislation. In other words, in the philosophies and principles of Bill 66, they have to consult with the unions first before they make a decision, but they don't have to consult anyone else involved if they're not in the union. That's basically what that

section says in very clear language.

As we go a little further along in the philosophies and principles of Bill 66, I'm going to read verbatim from

section 5: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council must appoint a commissioner as the deputy minister responsible for the commission. The commissioner is responsible for personnel management in the public service including but not limited to the following..." -- and it goes on to list quite a number of things. For the Finance minister's information, some of this is new wording. It gives the commissioner much more power; it gives the commissioner powers of a deputy minister. Before, the commissioner was just a commissioner.

Then, on the philosophies and principles of the bill, it goes on in

section 6 to talk about the delegation of those powers: "The commissioner may...."

The Speaker: Order, please. I regret that I'm interrupting the hon. member. The Chair has tried to be flexible, because I appreciate that the hon. member is trying to discuss the principles and philosophies. But as the hon. member knows, passing reference to sections of the bill is obviously in order at second reading.... But the Chair feels that the detail with which the hon. member is quoting these sections would be better left for committee stage. I ask the hon. member to keep his comments broad and on the principles of the bill itself.

R. Neufeld: I will adhere to your ruling, hon. Speaker, but I would beg your permission to be allowed to use the bill as reference because I didn't write it out on my yellow paper. I thought I would just keep it in the bill form, and I will not read the sections anymore. But if possible, as I have in other speeches, I will give some verbatim quotes from the bill or from newspaper articles.

It says that the commissioner may delegate any of her or his powers under the regulations to an employee of the commission.

Hon. Speaker, what you have done is worse than heckling -- you have broken my train of thought on where I was at. Thank you very much for doing that, but I'll try to recoup here and carry on as quickly as I can.

I will now get to the

section that most members have talked about: the

section that deals with employment equity and the reverse discrimination that we feel is in this bill when it talks about merit but really sets out quotas in its place. I gather from the speeches that that's mostly what everyone talked about. I want to talk a little about employment equity in this

section of the bill. The minister who spoke previously on women's equality talked at length about the past Social Credit administration and what they had achieved. When you read between the lines of what the minister was talking about, there was quite an achievement.

[ Page 9162 ]

She referred quite a bit to our leader, the member for Peace River South, who had talked about a ministry he was in that is now called Aboriginal Affairs. Employment equity in that ministry was about fifty-fifty; 50 percent were native people there. I can certainly understand that. I don't have any problem with that kind of thinking, because you are obviously dealing with the native population an awful lot, so you would want to have a lot of advice and that type of thing from people of native background. I can understand that.

But that was done without legislation, without quotas set in place and without a fairly lengthy bill that has some 29 or 30 sections setting out how you can hire people in employment equity and that type of thing. If you go back and look at that, you can see that the government of the day was progressing that way without legislation, even in pay equity.

When I was sitting in on the Minister of Finance's estimates, he made a complaint to the Leader of the Official Opposition that the millions of dollars that had been put in place that had to be spent by government for pay equity were quite excessive, and that was done by the previous government. You can't tell me there weren't some hiring and pay equity practices going on that recognized some of the problems we are dealing with in the nineties, in trying to bring things up to date for this time.

The Minister of Women's Equality talked about all the women who are hired now in management, compared to before. I haven't had time to look up the statistics, but I understand that in the deputy minister position, one or maybe two deputy ministers are female. That's a party that has been in government now for 20 months, and they wanted to exercise this authority and hire women for authoritative positions. I have no problem with that. If they are qualified for the job, I don't have any problem with it at all.

It should happen -- but they haven't lived up to what they say their philosophy is, and they are going to do it with a large bill which enacts and puts in legislation what must be done and what can't be done. The process can be put into place without legislation.

The other thing that this bill enacts is that Crown corporations have to put a policy in place and report to the Crown corporations secretariat and then to government as to their hiring policies and practices: how many women and aboriginals they're hiring in the Crown corporations. It's not just in the public service. That leads to a fair amount of extra work in those Crown corporations. As I have said before, there is no reason why you cannot have a policy in place, without legislation dictating that you look for more people who are not white-haired and middle-aged, such as myself.

We must look around a little more, and I have no problem with that. As I said, if they fit the bill, have the abilities and can do it, then they should be hired, but not through the reverse discrimination in Bill 66 -- and that's exactly what it is.

That brings to mind an advertisement for nurses that was in the news across Canada just recently, which said that women, aboriginals and minority groups would be given preference in hiring. That caused some problems here in British Columbia, and I'm sure that the government recognizes it today. We have now imported some 400 people, or 25 percent of the number we needed, into British Columbia, and we have people in British Columbia who are out of work who could be filling those positions. That's what happens with bills that talk about merit but don't have anything to do with merit; they have a lot to do with putting quotas into place.

It brings to mind another issue that happened not that long ago. I was honoured to be part of the constitutional committee that went around the province shortly after this government was elected. One of the questions in the questionnaire that was given to people who came to talk to the committee was about gender equality in the Senate and the public service. I can remember some fairly heated arguments from members of the committee who were trying to convince people in some communities that that's what should happen. I watched and listened to people, and it wasn't men who responded to these questions.

It was mostly women who responded to this question about equality in the Senate; I would bet that it was all women who answered. When we got closer to the end of the committee hearings, I found that question being asked less and less, simply because the women were saying: "No quotas. That's ridiculous." The women were saying: "I am at this position in my life and in my career because of my abilities." It wasn't middle-aged, white-haired men.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: It wasn't middle-aged women either, as the Minister of Finance just suggested. I'm sorry, it wasn't. It was women from all walks of life. I remember schoolteachers, nurses and homemakers. I remember people who worked in private companies who came to us and said: "No quotas; we don't need quotas at all. I want to get there because I deserve to be there." So I can't quite understand why this government would like to elevate sex and race over competence as primary criteria for selecting our public servants.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The member for Cariboo North sits back here and laughs. He has the exactly same right as I to get up and speak to this bill -- unless maybe the House Leader told him that he better not speak to it. I'm not sure. But he has every right to speak to this bill. If he feels that strongly about it, then he should get up and talk about the philosophy and principle of Bill 66, as the rest of the members have done today.

The quota system treats women and minorities as institutionalized gender and racial objects and ignores their value as individuals. That's exactly what it does.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: I haven't lost my place, hon. Speaker, I'm just letting them finish their conversation.

[ Page 9163 ]

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I think they have completed their conversation. Please continue.

[4:15]

R. Neufeld: I'm going to refer to the bill and speak about some of the sections at the very end of it. It's interesting to note that the Minister of Finance talked about deputy ministers' pensions in this act, I believe, along with employment equity and those types of things. The interesting remark was made that it's retroactive legislation to November 1991. The minister stated that deputies hired after that time knew what was going to take place. How would they know that these changes -- reductions in their pensions -- were going to take place? How would they know before this even hit the Legislature?

How would they know before the Korbin commission finished its $1.4 million survey? How would they know that, unless part of the Korbin commission was written long before the commission went to find out what people in British Columbia want?

I'll end with some quotes, which are not from the bill. "The fairest way to hire people is to ensure that the most qualified applicant gets the job." I think that's a very valid point. "The best way to build an efficient public service is to ensure that it employs the best people possible." The government should be striving to do that. "The best way to assist what the government calls disadvantaged groups is to help them with training and education." That's one place where this government has fallen behind. If what we're intending to do is help disadvantaged groups, then training and education is exactly what we should be doing -- but not by quotas or by reverse discrimination.

I read an

article a while ago about a prominent NDP person. I wish I could remember his name, but they don't stick in my mind very often for some reason. This was a prominent NDP person from Ontario -- and I think it's interesting that this person is from Ontario -- who said that reverse discrimination and hiring quotas, although they sound nice, don't work. We have this NDP government trying to initiate this kind of legislation. I say that the fairest way to hire people is to ensure that the most qualified applicant gets the job. That's what we should be doing; we should strive to have a policy for doing that, so we can get a broad base of people from our province into the public sector.

C. Tanner: The Public Service Act undermines the merit system of employment within the government. It subverts the traditional relationship between voters and their elected MLAs by elevating the public service to a representative role. In the past, federal, provincial and municipal governments staffed the public service with their friends and relatives, to the detriment of the quality of service offered to the public. Countries like Italy and India are to this day notorious for this practice.

For the past 50 or so years, this country, and this province, has used the merit system, which was fair, straightforward and honest, generally speaking. Bill 66 will change that. While the intention may be well motivated, we all know which road is paved with good intentions. Occasionally in our history, under extraordinary circumstances, exceptions are necessary.

For example, a preferential hiring system was put in place to assist disadvantaged veterans returning from the two world wars, and affirmative action has offset instances where the merit of women candidates was not judged objectively by members of the old-boy network. Bill 66 goes far past these two examples. It introduces a diversion from merit hiring that is "representative of the diversity of the people of British Columbia." Now gender, race, sexual preference and hair and eye colour may be factors in determining one's suitability for a government job. How does one define diversity?

Democracy in our political system to date has assumed that the elected members of government represent the people and that the public service delivers efficient services. I see many problems arising between permanently entrenched bureaucracy and the temporarily elected government. One does not need to have too much experience to predict who will win that fight, and the rise in taxes that will ensue if non-elected people increase their power base.

There have been suggestions within our current bureaucracy that better service may be available to clients -- read the public -- if one comes from the same background, and that the clients feel more comfortable when their own kind deals with them. If this is so, then it follows that in a short time it will be the client's right to be served by a representative of similar background.

Common sense dictates the rejection of Bill 66, which will lead us into uncharted waters and crosscurrents which will confuse and irritate an already delicate hiring system based solely on ability. As a broad rule, we should hire our public service based solely on merit; in exceptional circumstances, with other considerations in mind. But passing this type of legislation will open a Pandora's box of discontent and frustration for both employer and employee. It matters not to me who collects my taxes, who is my assistant, or who advises the Minister of Health, so long as they are courteous, helpful and cost-efficient. I ask all members to think twice before we put this legislation through.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

A. Cowie: Much has been said about this bill, so I too will speak very briefly to a couple of points. I believe in and can support the broad objectives of this bill, but I have a number of concerns, basically around the quota system. Essentially, this bill is going to change the way people are hired in the public service. I'm concerned about a number of limitations spelled out in

section 8, which I can speak to at third reading. I'm concerned in particular about the limitations that are spelled out and about the equity objectives portion. I believe that, regardless of a person's race, religion or gender, one has to hire according to merit -- what qualifications and skills the person has. That's all laid out in

section 8, and part of that really is done very well. The

section on quotas bothers me.

A couple of other parts of

section 8 also concern me, such as the limit on continuous work -- in other words, if someone's being hired they must prove that they're working in a continuous way with the public service. I

[ Page 9164 ]

can tell you, a number of people in the public service would be much better off if they were able to take a year or two off, either to get more education or to simply go away or travel. It would be a refreshing experience for them and they would be better for it; it would refurbish them as people. I think you can do that in private industry much more than you can in the public service -- and I've worked in both public and private service. That is a disappointment that that's in there, essentially as a limitation.

I also notice that a retirement

section is in here -- a person over 65 basically can't work for the public service unless it's an unusual situation. In the next ten or 20 years, we're going to find more and more older people over 65 who will be able to benefit the public service by continuing -- but by merit alone; they should certainly have to go back and be judged to see whether they're capable of doing the job.

That's one of the problems with the public service: the ability of someone in the public service to refurbish themselves from time to time and keep up with things. The public service today is the largest employer, especially at the municipal and regional government levels. It's the big industry in this province. It's hiring more and more people, as we found out by the Korbin report. I think it's very important that we look at the best possible people, and that they're hired by merit.

I want to give you just one example of many I've been involved in. I remember that a number of years ago in Vancouver the parks board was hiring a public relations officer. The personnel department came down with their standard traditional male -- who had been working in the department for a long time -- and felt that the parks board would be very comfortable with this person. I can tell you, when we looked at the qualifications by merit alone the board decided that this wasn't the person for us. Instead -- and this was a long time ago -- we hired a woman from the United States.

She wasn't even Canadian at the time; she is now. Over 20 years she has proven to be an excellent employee; she does a fine job and is still there. I'm very proud of her. I think that even many years ago -- when you look at merit alone -- a lot of our public service jobs were chosen by merit, and we should continue to do that.

As I mentioned, it's the fastest-growing industry. What bothers me is when we say: "Well, no, we'll have to have so many women here, and people with other particular qualifications and special interests." That disturbs me. I remember, a year or two ago, when a close friend of mine was going out for a job. This person is a women and very concerned that she be hired on the merit basis; she did not want to be hired simply because she was a woman. Most woman do not appreciate that. I will close saying those very few words.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to rise today to speak on Bill 66, the Public Service Act, a very important piece of legislation that will affect all public sector employees in the province. When you count all the employees of government, Crown corporations and the public sector, it's obvious that we're talking about the largest single group of employees in British Columbia.

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: "Public Service Act," says the Minister of Finance. I'm sure the minister would not disagree with the fact that this is a large group, perhaps one of the largest groups in B.C. One out of ten British Columbians are public servants in the province. So it's an important bill.

If you take a look at large organizations like government -- and those in the private sector, or unions -- it's interesting that, historically, in every generation the pendulum seems to swing between centralization and decentralization. Centralization means tighter control while decentralization means greater autonomy. The management style in any large organization inevitably seems to swing back and forth. When the pendulum swings toward decentralization and greater autonomy, organizations tend to flourish.

It allows management to be closer to the ground where individuals are actually carrying on the activities of the organization. When a group comes to power that believes in higher centralization of authority and control -- the justification usually being that of cost -- the pendulum swings back towards one central intelligence and authority that guides the organization in all of its activities.

With this bill, we can see part of the trend of this government's legislative program back toward centralized authority. We have to ask whether or not this is the right thing. If, right now, costs are out of control and need to be contained, and if it's part of cost containment and cost-effectiveness, then perhaps this is the right way to go. Maybe we do need centralized control and authority at this point in time. Of course, with centralized authority and control there is always the risk of abuse of power. That is something we need to be concerned about when we address the Public Service Act.

It is interesting to take a look at this historical change that goes back and forth. One has to ask whether or not it is very cost-efficient for organizations to be constantly redefining themselves, changing their management styles and going back and forth from centralization to decentralization.

[4:30]

One thing is for certain: there's no doubt that with this government we are going strongly toward centralization of control. With that comes the risk and the cost of a large bureaucracy. Perhaps when the Minister of Finance closes the debate on Bill 66, he might address that. He certainly hasn't addressed what guarantees there are to prevent the buildup of a costly, burdening bureaucracy. I would point out to the Minister of Finance some wise words from a historian named John Lukacs, who recently wrote an

article called "The End of the Twentieth Century." He said: "The size of the state increases along with the decrease of its authority, because of the decreasing respect and the decreasing efficiency of its powers." What this very wise historian is saying is that as government grows and bureaucracy burgeons, the actual moral and political authority of the state decreases, because the citizens have less respect for that kind of state. Bill 66 is actually going to contribute to the increased centralization of authority and the creation of a

[ Page 9165 ]

centralized intelligence. It's going to increase the size and decrease the authority of the state here in British Columbia. I think the government should be aware of that risk as it pursues this piece of legislation as part of its legislative program.

Obviously, this bill comes out of the Korbin commission. The government has made much of the very costly Korbin commission that it brought in. The Minister of Finance has noted that Judi Korbin billed the government $1,200 a day for her services. She worked part-time, three days a week. During the course of a little more than a year, the commissioner earned close to a quarter of a million dollars for a report that she worked on on a part-time basis.

One has to ask whether or not Bill 66, one of the products of the Korbin commission, is fashioned and shaped by the commissioner's report, and whether or not the commissioner is actually a model for public sector cost-effectiveness. She was paid $1,200 a day, and received almost a quarter of a million dollars personal earnings for a report that took a little more than a year. One has to wonder what kind of a model it is that the Minister of Finance can be so proud of when he talks about cost-effectiveness in the public sector. Is this the example that he would hold out?

The other issue relating to the Korbin commission report, which is the background for this legislation, is that its work wasn't new, even though it was good work. There are many precursors to that report that contributed to Bill 66. One can go back to the earlier days of this administration and the much celebrated and notorious Peat Marwick report, which the Minister of Finance also paid a pretty dollar for. The Peat Marwick report talked a lot about organization in the public sector and in the public service. In fact, some of the recommendations are surprisingly similar to those found in the Korbin commission report.

Not only that, there's one other infamous report that I might refer to and that is the Haggquist report, the final report of the compensation fairness commissioner, which the Minister of Finance never tabled in this House. I don't know why he has sat on this report, because it's been a year now since the Haggquist report came out. The Haggquist report, an excellent piece of work by the compensation fairness commissioner, pointed out the lack of meaningful standards of compensation classification in the province.

One has to ask why the Minister of Finance sat on this report, never tabled it in the House and never released it to the public, and why he waited a whole year until the Korbin commission report -- another expensive report -- came out before taking any action such as Bill 66 that we're debating here this afternoon. Could it be that the Minister of Finance wanted to wait until the government had hired all its friends -- all the NDP insiders -- into the senior, middle and junior levels of the public service? Could it be that they wanted to wait until they had hired every single friend and insider of this government into the public service before bringing in Bill 66?

I would hope that this wasn't the case, but the evidence is there that the Minister of Finance and his colleagues in the government knew very well about the disorganization, the reorganization that was required, the problems with classification and the need for meaningful reform in the public sector and the public service of this province. But they waited, and now they're finally bringing in some changes, presumably after they've hired everyone that they could think of on their membership lists.

That's one of the reasons why British Columbians are cynical about this government that claims to be an open government and to believe in the spirit of freedom of information. Yet they sit on important documents such as the Haggquist report, they fail to take advice from the Peat Marwick report and they pay friends and insiders exorbitant rates -- $1,200 a day -- before bringing in....

Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but we are on the philosophies and principles of Bill 66. Could we address our remarks in second reading to them.

D. Mitchell: Bill 66 tries to deal with some fundamental reforms by establishing a new, central human resources agency for the government of British Columbia. It also brings in a Public Service Employee Relations Commission. These are the centralized features of control that we were talking about and that I've been trying to address.

There's been a lot of comment on the differences between the private sector and the public sector during the course of this debate. I, for one, actually believe that there are significant differences, and that one cannot manage the public sector and the public service like one manages a company operating in the private sector. I need to go no further than refer to the Haggquist report, which has an excellent quote that relates directly to Bill 66 and the principles of this bill.

In the final report on the compensation fairness program, up to July 31, 1992, Commissioner Neil Haggquist stated -- and this is a very important quote dealing with the differences between the public and private sectors:

"The predilection of public sector employees to compare their compensation to their private sector 'counterparts' is inherently flawed. The majority of public sector employers have a monopoly on the services they provide -- there is no competition. It is not appropriate to allow public sector employees to compare their compensation to their 'so-called' equivalent positions in the private sector alone, and then seek upward adjustments in compensation. In addition, public sector employees have a degree of employment permanence not generally experienced in the private sector.

As a consequence of both the relative permanence of employment and the de facto monopoly on the delivery of public services, the public expects and deserves open, fair and responsible public sector compensation practices -- something that has not been achieved to date in this province."

This was Neil Haggquist writing one year ago. He was an excellent appointee of the government, and one of the few I can say that I applaud, because he wrote an excellent report. The only problem is that the Minister of Finance sat on this report for a whole year, and never released this valuable insight. He failed to table this report in the House.

[ Page 9166 ]

The point that Commissioner Haggquist makes in this report -- and I believe there is an attempt to respond to it in Bill 66, which comes out of the Korbin commission.... If we take a look at compensation levels in the public service in the light that Commissioner Haggquist suggests, I think this could be a big benefit to British Columbia.

The only concern we need to raise -- and it is a legitimate concern that British Columbians have about this bill -- is the centralization of power, and its potential abuse. The other issue, which has been much commented on by members in this debate, is the issue of merit versus equity in terms of classification and compensation levels in the public service. That's not an easy one to deal with. It's not easy to balance those two principles, because we all believe in and subscribe to the notion that the person best qualified for a job should be the one who receives that job, regardless of where they work. Merit should be the overriding principle.

Yet most fair-minded British Columbians also believe in the notion that groups which are representative of the province as a whole should be given a chance wherever possible. That includes women and members of different races or ethnic groups who don't traditionally have the opportunity to participate in the public service or in management positions in the public or private sector. So we try to balance those. As British Columbians, we want to be fair, and balance merit with equity.

How do we do it? How does the Public Service Act do it? My fear is that Bill 66 is really an exercise in doublespeak -- like Bill 33, the Human Rights Amendment Act, which really tried to enshrine human wrongs. Bill 66 talks about enshrining merit in the public service. Merit is a principle that has always been adhered to in a professional, independent public service. We have always believed in merit as the overriding principle for deciding who should be given a chance to serve the taxpayers of this province, who should be given the right and the privilege to work on behalf of all the people of British Columbia.

So to speak about enshrining merit for the first time, as if it's something new, is more than hypocrisy. But to try to balance that with the equity provisions of this act is not easy.

I will refer to one

article that was written in the last while -- from among the flurry of them on this legislation -- by a columnist that the Minister of Finance might recognize: Crawford Kilian, from one of the minister's favourite newspapers, the Province in Vancouver. Writing about Bill 66 on July 15 of this year, Kilian talked about the "representative fallacy" of trying to ensure that every group in society is made up proportionately of every other group in society.

So if you have a quota system of men versus women, or of all the different ethnic or racial groups in society, you would develop a quota system to try to ensure that the government is made up on similar lines. He also talked about the question of whether we could come up with such a formula. I don't think we could, but if so, would that necessarily be more representative?

Mr. Kilian stated two assumptions that go into the "representative fallacy": "One assumption is that everyone is exactly equal in abilities, interests and attitudes." Surely that's not true. Everyone is not equal in terms of abilities, interests or attitudes. So that's fallacy number one. The second assumption that goes into this fallacy is also interesting: "The second assumption directly contradicts the first. It says your race, sex and ethnicity make you utterly different from everyone else." Mr. Kilian concludes his

article by saying that "the really dangerous aspect of the fallacy is that it entrenches the discrimination it pretends to attack."

Surely that is something that the Minister of Finance must be concerned about as he brings this legislation forward. I know that as a fair-minded individual he would want to ensure that merit continues to be the prime motivator and determinant as to whether or not someone would get a job in the public service of the province; but at the same time, in trying to encourage equity, he would want to avoid the fallacy of representativeness that's outlined by Mr. Kilian in his

article in Vancouver's Province newspaper.

These are some concerns that I think need to be raised. I wanted to put them on the record in the debate on Bill 66. The main controversy is related to control and merit. My bias clearly is on the merit side, but I applaud the government for at least trying to address the other issue of equity. It's not an easy one to address. I have never pretended that it is. I don't think Bill 66 does it perfectly.

If it allows the centralization of authority, which is enshrined in the new commission established by this act, the government could run amok; and if it was drunk with power, it could abuse the process that it sets up in this bill. The equity provisions, if not balanced carefully with the merit provisions enshrined in the principle of an independent professional public service, could be abused. Do we trust this government not to abuse these powers? On the basis of its performance in the last year and a half that it has been in power, can we trust this government not to abuse the control that it is enshrining in Bill 66?

That's the issue that we must decide upon when we vote on Bill 66. I think the bill's contents are an honest and legitimate attempt to address these fundamental problems in British Columbia. We want to see them addressed in our public service. The message is clear; it's the messenger that is in doubt. When we vote on Bill 66, we are fundamentally voting on our confidence in this government's ability to bring these reforms forward in a way that cannot be abused -- abused in the sense that our democratic rights and freedoms have been in the last 20 months by this government.

[4:45]

L. Fox: I am pleased to stand and speak on the principle and philosophy of the Public Service Act.

On first reading this bill, I supported its principles probably more from a personal perspective than anything else. I think the principles are laudable. There's no question about that. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi pointed out that, although the message is in the bill, the problem is that the mechanism within it will do more to harm opportunities for minorities than help them.

[ Page 9167 ]

Some 20 to 25 years ago, there were huge discriminations not only against women but also against minorities -- specifically handicapped people and some racial minorities as well. I know from personal experience that if one is part of a minority, what one really wants is a fair opportunity to compete. You want the door to open, and you want to be able to prove that you are every bit as capable as the next individual, whether you are a man, a woman, a handicapped person or someone of different racial origin. What you really want is a fair opportunity to compete for those jobs and to prove yourself.

This legislation may take away that opportunity. It may take away the self-satisfaction that they get when they've competed openly and honestly and have achieved the job on the merits of what they can bring to the job in terms of either expertise or the ability to do the work. This bill will provide for hiring quotas and reverse discrimination -- no question about it.

The Minister of Women's Equality stated what has happened very well when she held up six or seven different hirings that occurred under the previous administration, where it made good common sense to go to groups of people whose interests a particular ministry or initiative was going to affect. Those hiring practices targeted those particular interest groups and minorities, with emphasis on hiring from within those, because it made sense that if you are going to deal with the issues affecting those people, then you should look within those groups for the expertise to help you address those concerns.

When I think back to my own personal examples, I can recall one point in my very early life when I was 20 years old and applying for a job. The individual looked at me as I walked up to him, and said: "No, we don't have a job for you." And I said: "Why? You've got some vacancies." He said that he was concerned that I wouldn't be able to do that kind of work. I convinced that individual to give me an opportunity to see whether or not I could do the work. He did, and I stand here today because of that.

That's what these people want -- an opportunity to prove themselves, to be trained, to learn and be able to win the position on the basis that they have earned it. They deserve it not on the basis that they are female or handicapped, or that they're a minority in terms of race. They need the opportunity to prove that they deserve that job because they are the best person for that job. That's what they want. I have spoken to many people about the intent of this bill, and without exception they have all concurred with me.

I've spoken to some businesswomen who have said: "Look, I got where I am today, even though it was difficult, because of my own initiative. Nobody gave me anything. I earned everything that I have today, and that's what makes me feel proud." This bill takes away from that self-satisfaction. It will dilute the warm feeling that we all get because we have achieved something in life through hard work and dedication, and through the knowledge we have created over the years with that hard work and dedication.

This bill puts those decisions in the hands of a very highly paid commissioner, who will now make decisions for individuals rather than letting them have the opportunity of doing it themselves. From where I stand, that is wrong. I would have supported this government wholeheartedly if they had come forward with a policy that would have provided equal access for employment to all interest groups in British Columbia.

If through that process it had identified any group of people who were having difficulty achieving in the public sector, if it had addressed that by way of education to bring these people up to an equal status so that they could fulfil their dreams and compete for those jobs on an even basis, I would have supported that as well.

While the government is well intentioned with this legislation, I'm extremely concerned that it is not going to do what it thinks it's going to do. It's going to take away some of that pride and desire, which many of these people in these groups want. Self-satisfaction is extremely important in our daily lives. If we take away from our ability to achieve that, and all of a sudden we feel that it's our right to have it and that we shouldn't have the opportunity to earn that and we don't need it, because the government's going to give it to us, I think that's a step backward. For those reasons I will be voting against this bill.

J. Dalton: I'm pleased to take my place and make some comments about Bill 66. It's fair to say as an opening statement that this bill, like many others that have been introduced in this session -- most of them quite late in the session; that goes without saying, given that it's July 26 -- has been put on the order paper in a rather rushed and belated fashion, without the proper consideration that any bill merits. This bill is an excellent example of what I would describe as the social engineering agenda of this government.

Perhaps in some sense there is merit in a government trying to shape society into its own form or model. If the government of the day had run on a platform in the last election that gave some indication of the possible social engineering that may come forward.... Quite frankly, I don't think there was any evidence in the election of 1991 that the NDP government would be bringing in such vastly varied legislation that has many significant implications. I will suggest that, in a larger sense, they have a hidden agenda.

I refer to what I consider to be the essence of Bill 66, which, of course, comes from the Korbin report. Before I make any reference to the bill itself, I would like to read into the record a reference from the Korbin report, volume 1, which is the final report that the Korbin commission put forward. Also of interest is that it contains the draft Public Service Act, which has found its way almost verbatim onto the order paper and which we are now debating. On page 25 the Korbin report says: "The public service workforce is not representative of the public it serves."

While that may or may not be, I think this is where the hidden agenda is quite possibly found in the bill -- if indeed we have to search for one. That's a fair comment, because this government presents legislation that on the surface seems to have merit -- no pun intended, hon. Speaker. In a moment I'm going to talk

[ Page 9168 ]

about the principle of merit contained in this bill. The bill seems to have merit. Probably the government will argue in summation that the opposition should not be heard to be speaking contrary to this bill, because then, of course, we would be guilty, I suppose, of being politically incorrect. But I would suggest that this government is trying to go too far to be politically correct, and they've missed the target.

What do we find in Bill 66 itself that has been taken from the Korbin report and the quotation that I have just made reference to? In

section 8 under the heading "Appointments to the Public Service," we find that this bill is to seek representation "of the diversity of the people of British Columbia...." I think that is a fair translation into the bill from the quote I made previously from the Korbin report. That seems to fly in the face of the first part of

section 8, which talks about appointments to the public service being based on the principle of merit and, the provision goes on, "the knowledge, skills and abilities of eligible applicants."

Quite frankly, when you consider the number of other bills that have tried to mould our society in the shape of the government of the day.... Two or three come to mind. Certainly, I think, the Human Rights Amendment Act is a bill that exemplifies that. Bill 78, the Public Sector Employers Act, a bill we'll perhaps be dealing with later today, is also, I would suggest, trying in a way to mould our society to the form this government would like it to take.

Most importantly, what we have in front of us in Bill 66 is, I think, a contradiction. I think there's a built-in discrepancy in

section 8. We would like this government to give some serious thought to whether indeed they believe in the principle of merit -- which we in the opposition advocate should be the guideline for all hiring....

I think it's also ironic, in a way, that the Korbin report was commissioned in large part to find ways to save tax dollars. I'm not so sure that the contradiction between the principle of merit and the probable hidden hiring agenda of this government is going to save money. In fact, I think it may be costly in the long run. The cost factor comes in if we get away from hiring on the principle of merit and go more on the basis of how we can best serve our society by a hiring quota. I think that's what we actually find in this bill, and that's where this bill is going to take British Columbia.

If we are going to be considering a hiring quota and potentially cast aside the principle of merit -- which this bill starts with but then detracts from, I think -- then we are not going to achieve one of the objectives of the Korbin commission, which is ways to save public money.

[5:00]

We actually may be defeating that purpose; it may be costing more in the long run than is necessary, and could be avoided. I say that because -- even though we may agree in a general sense that there's a laudable objective in this bill, which is the hiring process based on merit -- I think that concept of hiring on merit is discredited by the references in the same

section 8 of this bill, which is central to the whole hiring process this government will be undertaking if this bill is passed. We have here a contradiction: the principle of merit is described, but then the very same

section goes on to take away and detract from that principle.

If indeed we are searching for a public service that is representative of the diversity of British Columbia -- which may be a laudable goal -- this bill is not going to achieve that. This government has a social engineering objective in mind that is not going to best serve the taxpayers of British Columbia. I'm hoping that the minister in whose name this bill has been introduced, the Finance minister, has the taxpayer as his number on