1985 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5005 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Walters abduction. Mr. Lauk –– 5005

B.C. telephone rate increases. Mr. Nicolson –– 5005

Cruise missile testing. Mr. Skelly –– 5006

Sailing season of Princess Marguerite . Mr. Hanson –– 5006

Mr. Blencoe

Motorcyclist licensing changes. Mr. Passarell –– 5006

Ganges sewer subsidy. Mr. Blencoe –– 5007

Public Service Act (Bill 35). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5007

Mr. Hanson –– 5009

Mr. Lea –– 5015

Mr. Gabelmann –– 5016

Mr. Cocke –– 5019

Mr. Mitchell –– 5020

Mr. Nicolson –– 5022

Ms. Brown –– 5023

Mr. Stupich –– 5026

Tabling Documents –– 5027

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1985

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask your permission to make one introduction

and then to make reference to some people who are not here but whom I would

like to be here.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That will unfold in a moment, Madam Member.

First of all, there are some of us in this chamber who had time in

municipal service and who would remember Jot Palyga, formerly of Trail

— the mayor of Trail, 1961 to 1968 — now a resident of Calgary. Mr. and

Mrs. Joe Palyga are in the gallery, and I wonder if the House would

make them welcome.

I think it would also be appropriate today to acknowledge the success of Steve

Skillings and his Victoria rink. Steve Skillings is the skip of the Victoria

team representing B.C. They won the Canadian Mixed Curling Championships. Of particular

note of interest to the House, perhaps, is that their third, Pat Sanders, is

an employee in the Ministry of Finance.

MR. PELTON: In the gallery today are two small businessmen,

Mr. Fred Clarke from Mission and Mr. Jack Clarke from Langley. I would

ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's a great day for Langley today. We

also have visiting with us, for some business in Victoria today, the

president-chairman of the British Columbia Chicken Marketing Board, Mr.

Dick Sendall, from Langley. I'd like the House to make him welcome.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I also would like the members of the House to

join with me today in welcoming a small businessman — from the riding of Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew. Up until Friday night Trevor Bryden was the president of the Liberal

Association in Esquimalt. I'm proud to say that he is joining us today in

the gallery as a member of the United Party of British Columbia. I would ask

you to join me in welcoming him.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is the new mayor for the

city of Nanaimo, Mr. Graeme Roberts, and I would ask the House to welcome him.

MR. LAUK: I rise under standing orders about attendance in the chamber. It's been a long time.

MR. SPEAKER: Not that long. The member knows that this matter has been well canvassed.

Oral Questions

WALTERS ABDUCTION

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Attorney-General as soon as the

general tumult subsides. With respect to the kidnapping of one Donald Walters,

a citizen of Canada, has the Attorney-General communicated the province's

position to the Minister of Justice with respect to the extradition of the pilot

and others involved in the kidnapping, including the bondsmen who may have

ordered the kidnapping in a foreign jurisdiction — all being a conspiracy to

kidnap?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: May I ask why the Attorney-General has not taken it upon himself

to insist upon the extradition of persons who have conspired to kidnap within

our jurisdiction?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: What?

HON. MR. SMITH: I can't tell you.

MR. LAUK: Why can't you tell me? Is it confidential?

HON. MR. SMITH: In the ordinary course of these matters it

takes a little time to review a situation like this and to receive

advice. It would be premature to make a comment here, but I will make a

comment as soon as I am able to.

MR. LAUK: I thank the Attorney-General. I would also ask the Attorney-General

to consider advising the government to approach the Minister of External Affairs.

This is the second such incident in Canada. We're being treated as if we're

some boonie, where John Wayne can come up and nab one of our citizens whenever

the spirit moves him. I would like to ask the government to advise the Minister

of External Affairs to make the strongest possible representation to the government

of the United States to ensure that some measures be taken in the United States

to discourage these bounty hunters from offending the sovereignty of Canada.

BC TELEPHONE RATE INCREASES

MR. NICOLSON: My question is to the Minister of Universities, Science

and Communications. The government of Ontario did intervene in the hearings

before the CRTC on B.C. Tel's proposed 15 percent rate hike to residential

subscribers. Is this government now prepared to intervene on behalf of its citizens

in order to avoid this embarrassing situation, where another provincial government

has to plead for the citizens of B.C.?

[2:15]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to bring further information

to the member with regard to the province of Ontario. This is the first I've

heard of such a thing, but I can say that we have two positions traditionally.

The first is that the jurisdiction of the B.C. Telephone Company should be in

B.C. where the B.C. Utilities Commission can pass judgement on its rates;

the second is that a 15 percent increase is preposterous, unnecessary and out

of the question.

MR. NICOLSON: Thank you. That certainly is one area in which

the official opposition concurs. It's also our position that the

jurisdiction should be here in British Columbia. However, by not

appearing before the CRTC, does the minister not feel that they are

acquiescing in those very onerous and disruptive changes in the rate

schedules?

[ Page 5006 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: Not really, because the appropriate place

for governments to speak is to other governments, not to the hirelings

of other governments. I may say that the CRTC is appointed by the

federal government. The new federal government has made it clear that

it will give instruction to the CRTC; therefore the appropriate place

for, our government, under ordinary circumstances, to make its opinions

known is to the federal government, which controls the CRTC.

MR. NICOLSON: Then I ask the minister if he has intervened with the federal minister recently in order to prevent this increase.

MS. SANFORD: Why do you go to the CTC then? The government makes representations to the CTC all the time.

HON. MR. McGEER: Under normal circumstances — and I think the members

opposite can grasp this — the proper place for one level of government to make

its positions known is to another level of government, just as we have had a

first ministers' meeting in Ottawa. That's the way to bring harmony.

I'm sure my colleagues, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), would

recognize this. It's not for a government to get into an argument with some

appointed body of the federal government. Make the position known to government

itself, and let it be understood that in the final analysis appointed bodies

are responsible to the governments that appoint them, So it is with the CRTC.

I can give an undertaking to the member that we will certainly make our position

known again to the federal government with respect to this matter.

CRUISE MISSILE TESTING

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

Intergovernmental Relations, due to the absence of the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who is in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, given that Canada has again announced that they will allow the

testing of the cruise missile over British Columbia, will the acting Minister

of Intergovernmental Relations advise whether the government of BC has been

consulted by the federal government regarding cruise missile system tests run

over the territory of British Columbia?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, due to the member's absence, I

will be very pleased to take that question on notice and have it

answered on his return.

MR. SKELLY: Supplementary. What steps has the government of

British Columbia taken to protest involvement in the arms race and, in

particular, the testing of cruise missile systems over British

Columbia? Has this government taken any steps to do that to the federal

government?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the minister, upon his

return, will be very pleased to take the necessary time to bring forward an

answer that I'm sure you're seeking. Therefore I again take the question

as notice and will bring it to his attention upon his return.

MR. SKELLY: Would the minister undertake to consult with the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations before the testing of the

cruise missile?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No doubt I will be discussing the question

I've just taken as notice with the minister upon his return, and no

doubt he will be responding some time shortly after that.

PRINCESS MARGUERITE SAILINGS

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation

and Highways, in his authority of overseeing the Princess Marguerite of the

B.C. Steamship Company. The planning for the sailing date for the Princess Marguerite

is creating some economic damage here in our community. As the minister recognizes,

the Princess Marguerite is a central part of the Victoria tourist economy. In

fact, just last week the Victoria visitors' bureau remarked, "You've

got to be kidding," when they heard that the sailing date was moved ahead.

Has the government now decided to reconsider and restore the sailing date effective

May 3?

HON. A. FRASER: The answer is no.

MR. HANSON: Is the minister aware that there is a report done by staff

at the B.C. Steamship Company that recommends that a sailing of May 3 would be

the most opportune date for beginning this year's tourist season?

HON. A. FRASER: Yes, I'm aware of several reports that we have, including staff reports.

MR. BLENCOE: Supplementary to the first member's question,

Mr. Speaker. I think the minister and the whole House recognize the

importance of the Marguerite

to this community and to tourism. In light of that, I wonder if the

minister intends to meet with the Victoria MLAs to try to find some

resolution to this important issue. It's a simple question: would he,

today or as soon as possible, meet with us to see if we can work this

thing out?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'd have to think about that.

MOTORCYCLIST LICENSING CHANGES

MR. PASSARELL: A question to the same minister: he has

recently announced a new policy requiring holders of learners' permits

for motorcycles to be accompanied by another motorcyclist, driving by

his side. In view of the hardship this may involve for cyclists in

remote and rural areas of the province, will the minister advise how he

proposes to handle this situation?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member, we're aware that

it will cause some hardships; on the other side of the ledger, we were

severely criticized in 1984 for not having tough enough conditions for

licensing of motorcycles, and we're trying to tighten up on that.

[ Page

5007 ]

GANGES SEWER SUBSIDY

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Last week I asked the minister about the Ganges sewer and the failure to hold

a referendum on the issue. The chairman of the CRD stated again last week that

if they dared to hold a referendum in Ganges on the sewer issue, the minister

would remove the $800,000 grant to finance the sewer's debt. The question

is: why will the minister not allow a democratic vote on this issue when the

residents in that area have said for years that they wish to vote on it?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, the question of a referendum is no problem,

as far as I am concerned, as long as a referendum deals only with the amount

of money that was already allocated to that project. However, as was already

indicated to this House, there was an additional amount of money put forward

that represented closely the cost of putting in the proper facilities for both

the school and the hospital. Therefore, if indeed a referendum took place and

the decision of the voters was "no," then we could find ourselves

in a rather difficult situation with respect to providing the proper facilities

for those two institutions.

After over 20 years arid over 17 studies, I think it's about time that

we got on with the job. There seems to be absolutely no regard for those students

in that school who are not receiving the standard of sewage disposal that they

are entitled to. There is no regard for those patients in the hospital that

require this service upgraded.

I am told, Mr. Speaker, that during the winter months we have raw sewage entering

ditches and the harbour. I am also advised that they're having to transport

raw sewage away from the hospital; I have asked my staff to confirm this. But

I am told that that material is being transported by ferry. I would think that

it's about time the opposition got down to supporting a move of this nature

that is going to permit the proper facilities to be installed for the hospital

and the school and, while we are spending that money, utilize the other funds

already available and the equipment in place and provide an adequate service

for that entire designated community.

Orders of the Day

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

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity of moving second reading of the Public Service Act.

Before I address specific changes contained in this bill, I want to emphasize

the critical aspects of government personnel management that remain unchanged.

The principle that merit shall govern appointments to the public service is

at the heart of this bill. This is a long-standing principle and has been enshrined

in previous public service acts and the civil service acts that preceded them.

As a characteristic of good management, the idea of appointing or promoting

people who are most qualified to do the job does not differ in any way from

the practices found in any well-run business. We, however, must also take into

account the unique position of the Crown as an employer. For this reason, the

bill proposes changes which will strengthen guardianship of this merit principle

and ensure that its application benefits all of our citizens.

The bill proposes establishment of an independent Public Service Commission.

This commission will hear appeals of job applicants who feel the principle of

merit has not been followed in specific appointments. I draw to your attention,

Mr. Speaker, the fact that for the first time formal appeals would be allowed

by any job applicant, not only those who art already employed in the public

service. The former act established a consultative committee representative

of each bargaining agent to deal with procedures involved in determining merit.

This bill calls for consultation. But let us be frank: the union's position

is to put large weighting to seniority, and so they should argue this case to

protect their members. But our responsibility is broader. It extends to all

members of the public. At the present time seniority is weighted at 10 percent,

with knowledge, experience and personnel suitability making up the remaining

90 percent.

I can assure the House, Mr. Speaker, that we also recognize the

value of seniority and will not diminish its rating at all. However,

that does not take away our responsibility as elected representatives

to ensure that in law the merit principle is upheld in a way that is

fair to all British Columbians.

[2:30]

The role of the proposed Public Service Commission differs

significantly from that of the existing commission. The current Public

Service Act charges the commission with a mix of managerial and redress

responsibilities. There are two significant shortcomings in this

allocation of responsibility. The first is that the commissioner is

responsible for administering the staffing process and for policing it.

In effect, the commission is responsible for policing itself.

This bill proposes that the Public Service Commission's role of

guarding the application of the merit principle be separated from any

real or apparent conflict with other responsibilities.

Of note, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that in establishing an independent Public

Service Commission, which is solely a redress agency, British Columbia joins

the other two provinces that most recently changed their public service acts:

New Brunswick and Quebec. It might be noted that in 1978 the United States Civil

Service Commission was abolished and replaced by the merit system's protection

board, which is also solely a redress agency.

I mentioned earlier that the current assignment of responsibility to the Public

Service Commission has two major shortcomings, the first of which I have already

addressed. The second shortcoming is that sound, efficient management of in

ministries is difficult to achieve when authority to make the day-to-day personnel

decisions is in a central agency. The problems inherent in such a split of

managerial responsibilities can be illustrated with a couple of examples. Under

the current Public Service Act no employee may transfer either within a ministry

or between ministries without the prior approval of the Public Service Commission.

A request to approve such a transfer, with all its accompanying justification,

must wend its way through the bureaucracy in every single case. Then the commission's

decision must retrace that route. This happens even when everyone involved in

the transfer, including employees, thinks that it is desirable. The supervisors,

the managers, the deputy ministers can all consider that it is a good management

decision, but only the

[ Page 5008 ]

commission, which has no first-hand knowledge of the situation, can actually make the decision.

Another example of the authority to decide job classifications is

that no public servant except those who work for the government

employee relations bureau — GERB — had the authority to decide, for

instance, that a clerk working in Fort St. John was a clerk 3 rather

than a clerk 5. The reality is that the handful of people in Victoria

were allowed to make these decisions totally dependent upon second- or

third-hand information provided by the people who worked in the

ministry. In such a situation, who is really responsible if the job is

classified incorrectly? How could GERB officials be held accountable if

the job wasn't well explained? How could the ministry officials be hold

accountable for decisions they didn't make? In order for a deputy

minister to be fully accountable for the efficient operation of the

ministry, he or she must have the authority to implement the day-to-day

personnel transactions. In government there has been the practice of

sharing responsibility and thereby clouding the proper accountability

of both managers and central agencies.

My last few remarks have concentrated on the problems created when

the people who need to make the decisions aren't allowed to, and the

people who are allowed to make the decisions aren't in the best

position to do so.

Like many other provincial jurisdictions — and indeed the federal

government — we responded to changes in the public service of the

1970s, namely the introduction of collective bargaining, by creating

two centralized agencies that shared hiring, classification and

collective bargaining. The experience of the last ten years has

demonstrated clearly that it is time for new directions.

This bill does not contain provisions which would create these problems. The

bill permits the centralization of policy development in collective bargaining

authority. It is both necessary and appropriate that the day-to-day decisions

made in any one ministry be governed by policies which apply equally to all

ministries. It is important that the personnel decisions made in one ministry

be in general accord with decisions made in all the other ministries and that

these daily decisions reflect the government's direction. In this respect,

personnel management in the B.C. government will parallel our system of financial

management. The Treasury Board will continue to act as a committee of the executive

council in matters relating to government of personnel management. Just as directives

respecting accounting policies and practices are issued through the Ministry

of Finance, directives respecting personnel management will be issued through

the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services. For example, issues

such as employee transfers and safeguards against conflict of interest that

are found in the present act will be addressed through directives under

section

2 of this bill. Directives will also be used as a mechanism to continue the

existing understanding of words such as "position," "establishment,"

"class" or "promotion" which are defined in the Public Service

Act.

Matters that are negotiable through collective bargaining will of course be

dealt with in that forum. This act, in my view, does not alter or change the

trade unions representing our employees; areas requiring specific legislative

direction, however, have been incorporated into the bill. For example, in order

to ensure that employees are on an equal footing,

section 6(1) indicates that

employees will be on probation until they have worked the equivalent of six

months; thus a half-time employee will be on probation for a period of 12 months.

A directive will be issued to govern the application of this provision in the

multitude of different situations found in government.

This bill also continues a few other provisions contained in the

current Public Service Act, such as oaths, Canadian preference,

mandatory retirement and the royal prerogative to hire and dismiss

staff.

Mr. Speaker, there is one more significant proposal in this bill which I have

not yet addressed: the establishment of a government personnel services division

to act as a central focal point for all personnel issues. The reasons for this

proposal are best explained within the context of what has been done before.

The relationship between the government and its employees has

changed considerably over the years. It has evolved from one that might

be classified as master and servant to the present situation where the

Crown, like other employers in our society, is required by law to deal

contractually with its employees. Prior to collective bargaining, the

employees' rights and the government's obligations were reflected in

the civil service act and the regulations and policies that flowed from

it. Although the name of the act was changed to the Public Service Act

in 1974, when the concept of collective bargaining was introduced, few

changes were made to the basic structure of personnel management in

government.

In 1976 we introduced changes to the Public Service Act in an attempt to find

a better way of dealing with collective bargaining within the traditions, policies

and legislative framework of the public service. At that time responsibility

for labour relations, compensation and general personnel matters were removed

from the Public Service Commission and assigned to the Treasury Board, acting

through its agent the Government Employee Relations Bureau. The Public Service

Commission was left with a responsibility for the recruitment and election of

employees, staff development and training, and the coordination of employee

safety. This dual agency structure was an interesting concept, although not

unique to this province, and has been given a good test. The model is in fact

one found in the federal government, where responsibility for personnel management

is shared between the Public Service Commission and the Treasury Board secretariat.

There are problems, again not unique to this province; they are ones created

by the separation of responsibilities for personnel management. Specific personnel-related

functions are not watertight compartments. There is in fact considerable overlap

between recruitment and classification or between collective bargaining and

safety.

Five years ago in the federal sphere, a special committee headed by Guy D'Avignon

and the merit principle in the federal public service. They concluded that the

dual structure of responsibility was not conducive to effective management of

the government's staff. The committee recognized that a focal point to translate

government policy to managerial action was needed. It found that the split in

responsibility left the managers in government without the clearly defined goals

that were necessary for efficient management. The D'Avignon committee recommended

that a single branch of government be assigned all aspects of personnel management.

It went on to recommend that an independent public service commission be retained

as the guardian of the merit principle. It would not, however, have any day-to-day

operational responsibilities.

[ Page

5009 ]

The studies we have done, both from inside and outside of government, have

come to the same conclusion. Mr. Speaker, we need a strong central focus in

government to set goals for personnel management, create policies and monitor

actual practices. The organization structure providing personnel services in

the government would be changed through this bill. It is a change that will

find wide acceptance, as it will clearly define responsibilities and properly

assign accountabilities for personnel management in the public service.

Earlier I spoke about the evolution of personnel administration in government.

The emergence of the merit principle is one example of this evolution. Originally

the Crown could employ and dismiss any and all of its servants without having

to justify these decisions. By the beginning of this century, the way in which

these royal prerogatives were being exercised in Canada had become incompatible

with the values held by an increasing number of people. Ways such as the adoption

of the merit principle were found to limit the widespread indiscriminate use

of these prerogatives. It is important to note that the right of the Crown to

employ and dismiss at pleasure was only limited. It was not abolished in the

past, and it is not abolished in this bill.

Section 1 addresses employment,

while

section 14 deals with dismissals. These prerogatives are currently enshrined

section 2 and

section 48 of the Public Service Act.

Some members may say that the removal from the Public Service Commission of

the power to appoint staff leaves the door wide open for political patronage.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to state in no uncertain terms that the provisions of this

bill make such an accusation false and absolutely groundless. Our commitment

to preserve and, indeed. strengthen the merit principle permeates this bill.

The bill unequivocally requires that appointment to and promotions within the

public service be based on merit. The types of factors that may legitimately

define merit are clearly spelled out in

section 5. Appointments to and from

the public service can only occur after a process is followed that appraises

the qualifications and capabilities of eligible applicants. Merit is determined

by having regard to the job duties in relation to the applicant's skills,

education, knowledge, experience, past work performance and seniority. The directives

that will be issued in this regard will be public knowledge, and I can assure

the House that this legislation will guarantee a truly meritorious public service.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Raise that in this debate, and I'll answer that question for you.

People familiar with the operation of government know that the real decisions

on who is hired are made in the ministries. Indeed, any person who knows how

government works knows that the authority to recruit was delegated to most ministries

already. I want the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) to pay attention

to those words. There has been a delegation of authority to hire to other ministries.

All ministries have that authority at this time.

For example, the Attorney-General, Lands, Parks and Housing, Transportation

and Highways and several others received delegation to directly hire in 1965,

twenty years ago. Other ministries have received this recruitment delegation

over the years, until all now have it. Recruitment was, therefore, formally

handled by the Public Service Commission. But in reality — even during the 1972

to 1975 era — hiring took place in the ministries, even though it was formally

ratified by the Public Service Commission. However, to some degree these decisions

have been shielded from accountability, because formal authority for appointment

has rested with the Public Service Commission. This bill will allow accountability

for the proper application of the merit principle to be clearly assigned to

ministries.

[2:45]

Any person who considers that the merit principle was improperly applied to

his or her application for a job will be able to bring the case to an independent

— and I stress the word "independent" — Public Service Commission.

This commission will not be in the invidious position of reviewing decisions

for which it was ultimately responsible in the first place. The Crown's

prerogatives to hire and fire that I described earlier have not been expanded;

they have only been preserved.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions I've just described strengthen the merit principle

and cannot be characterized as an erosion of it.

Another example of the evolution to which I referred earlier is the fact that

the existence of collective bargaining has had an impact on the maintenance

of the merit principle. The bargaining agents for employees are vigilant in

ensuring that the principle of merit is a criterion for appointments and promotions

within the public service. The proposed legislation quite clearly retains the

principle of merit. Indeed, it strengthens merit by an additional criterion:

past work performance, both in initial appointments from outside and in promotions

from within the public service.

The establishment of the Public Service Commission as an appeal

agency separate and apart from staffing operations will enhance its

true independence and contribute to its ability to act as a guardian of

the merit principle. Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in moving

second reading of this bill.

MR. HANSON: We on this side of the House will be opposing this bill.

We will be opposing this bill because of the potential danger that the provisions

of this new act contain for abuse, for political patronage and for the assignment,

delegation and definition of "merit" based on politics rather than

on weighted factors of merit as outlined by that minister.

It is very much a part of a modern democratic society that the hiring of people

employed by the government — whether it be at the federal, provincial or municipal

level — to work on behalf of the public should be separate and apart from any

political consideration whatsoever. What we have had in this province is a Public

Service Commission which was appointed for, I believe, a six-year term. Those

individuals were themselves appointed on merit, not for partisan reasons. The

hiring for government and the recruitment into the public service of the province

was done separate and apart from the political party in party in power in the

province. That is a fundamental tenet of any democratic society.

Mr. Speaker, the Public Service Commission that will be established

under this bill will have a very limited function. It will, first of

all, be appointed by this cabinet, and then it will hear only appeals.

Individuals applying for employment in this province will not really

have a clear idea whether or not they've had a fair hearing.

The present commission appointed the chairperson of a panel which

depended on the nature of the position. They oversaw the recruitment

process. For the minister to say that the ministries had no say in that

hiring in terms of the kinds of

[ Page 5010 ]

skill levels required and the attributes necessary for that particular position is absolutely false.

What the government wants to do is take over the direct hiring of

the public service so that the public service is more an arm of a

political party, as opposed to working for the people of this province.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden that minister is getting very

agitated. The merit principle and its application is fundamental in a modern

democratic society. He refers to the weighting of different factors of merit

as they may apply to different positions. Fine. It has always been understood

in the Ministry of Highways, for example, that if a person had worked for a

number of years through various levels of labourer, and a truck-driving position

was available, that person with some seniority would have some opportunity to

apply for the truck-driving job. What he tries to do in his initial remarks

is extrapolate that to all positions in government, which is false. That's

misinformation.

There are many hundreds of different types of jobs in the public service, as

you are aware. There are people who work in the health institutions. There are

people who work in correctional institutions. There are people who do scientific

things — very sophisticated and at a high educational level. There are people

who are oriented more to public relations, coming from media or information

backgrounds. There is the whole clerical area. There's engineering. There

are all sort of technical aspects. There are pilots. There are even people who

function as priests and ministers in the correctional institutions, I believe,

I don't know whether that particular group is still in existence, but it

was a few years ago. These were people who performed last rites and so on and

worked in the counselling and religious area in institutions. Whether they're

still there or not I don't know.

What I'm saying is that the public service reflects very much the diversity

of the economy in the private sector, except these people are performing functions

that have been mandated by this Legislature to be delivered to the public. The

people, the skills, education and qualifications necessary to provide those

services are to be determined by an independent body, separate from a political

party, because a political party has a built-in inclination to direct its attention

in certain ways, according to its background and its principles and its philosophical

direction. But that has nothing to do with whether a person can be a good engineer

or a good technician or a curator or a biologist or a librarian or a nurse's

aide or a truck driver or a surveyor or an assessor or any of the multitude

of positions that the public supports through its general revenue and taxation.

Why do we have a public service commission in the first place, Mr. Speaker?

We have a public service commission because the history of this province was

that political patronage was a part of working for the government. There are

other jurisdictions where political patronage is still very much a part of being

employed by the government, so that when governments change, truck drivers and

nurses' aides and assessors and biologists change. There is a turnover.

Is that the kind of public service we want in British Columbia?

In 1983 we had Bill 3, which this government put forward to fire public service

workers, whether they were firefighters, police personnel, nurses, teachers,

municipal workers or anything else in the public service — to fire them without

cause. In other words, that group of employees would no longer have natural

justice. They would have no recourse to natural justice. They could be fired

by law, by the government, without just cause.

We have a bill here which allows for hiring without cause, rather

than firing without cause. Political affiliation can be very difficult

to detect by outside observers. In other words, if a panel directed by

a manager who may or may not be a political appointee — and many of the

top-level managers in government, whether we call them deputies or

associate deputies or assistant deputies, are categorized as political

appointees....

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Now if a ministry is going to hire.... Let's just say it's Highways.

If Highways is going to be hiring directly, outside of any independent

hiring agency.... In other words, the Provincial Secretary in this case

is going to develop directives and give them to the ministries, and

those ministries will then determine how the hiring takes place. Now

that hiring could weight political affiliation with greater weight than

seniority, qualifications, experience or education. The potential for

abuse is there, and we know enough about the record of this government

in its approach to administering the public service to be frightened of

that proposal.

Almost all of the statutory protections which were provided for under the old

Public Service Act have been swept into

section 2. This

section allows the Provincial

Secretary to issue directives dealing with government personnel management.

Nowhere in this new act does it define just what a directive is, nor does it

state what the purpose of these directives are.

Let's look at the act. If the intent is to have these directives

become regulations, then this

section will restrict the union's ability

— the bargaining units that represent the public service group; that's

the professionals, the nurses, the BCGEU and so on — to deal with

matters listed under subsections (a), (b), (c), (c), (f), and (g).

Let's just take a look at the language of

section 2, personnel management:

"The Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services may issue

directives respecting government personnel management, including directives

respecting (

a) recruitment, selection and appointment of staff...."

Now there are, Mr. Speaker, many thousands of people hired directly by this

provincial governmen., That minister sitting there will have the authority to

carry out directly the recruitment and selection process, and the appointment

of staff to work for the provincial government. He will also have authority

for training, for the development of the health and safety of employees, and

for the general administration of all labour relations matters of the public

service.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that minister is competent. He is a

politician; he's not an expert in industrial relations. He's not an

expert in personnel matters or health and safety matters, he's a

politician. So he'll be making directives, not experts in industrial

relations or in modern labour relations matters, as they are examined

in various jurisdictions. But we'll have a politician — a Social Credit

politician from Columbia River — and he will be in charge, along with

his deputy, of administering through other political appointees in

[ Page

5011 ]

other ministries the hiring and recruitment process

in government. That is a very dangerous route for the public service of

British Columbia to go.

[3:00]

The changes in this bill, Mr. Speaker, have to be seen also in terms

of companion pieces of legislation, where the government demonstrates

its basic contempt for the electoral process through amendments to the

Election Act, through its basic contempt for the Legislature and its

basic contempt for the independence of the appointment process which

should be in place within our government for hiring people to work on

behalf of the public of this province. So what we have in this bill is

the potential for hiring without cause or hiring for political purposes

— political intervention.

Mr. Speaker, I can recall a time when the position of government agent was

a highly revered and exalted position within the public service of this province.

It was a position for a career government employee, someone who had demonstrated

the ability to work consistently on behalf of the public without political interference.

Now we have the Tony Tozer style, the Tony Tozer government agent — people who

have not come through the normal course of government promotion. Their promotion

is a different promotion: a partisan Social Credit-motivated promotion. That

type of appointment policy could permeate all of the public service of this

province. The potential is clearly there.

Government agents now are sent little messages where they're asked to monitor

how Social Credit cabinet ministers present themselves on television — whether

they look all right, or whether their particular press conference or press release

is covered on a regional television hookup. That is a role that government agents

have now had to assume on behalf of the Socred masters. The Provincial Secretary

referred to that master-servant relationship — that master-slave relationship

which government workers have had in history. Now we're going to have that

kind of style permeate the hiring policy of our government.

This is a very important bill, Mr. Speaker. It takes us on a major departure

from the independent appointment policy that is so important to the people of

this province. The commission will be relegated to a relatively minor function

in appeals. Appeals to what? The chairperson of the commission or the three

people appointed are not at deputy minister rank. There's nothing in the

bill that states they have any kind of equivalency with deputy ministers in

the government service. They will be working for the deputy Provincial Secretary

— they'll be a part of Mr. Plecas's organization. That's the way

they will do business: they will report to him, and he will be reporting directly

to the Premier or to the Provincial Secretary. Or maybe Mr. Kinsella will be

in charge; that is a possibility as well. We will have these commissioners working

underneath a deputy; they'll be working under a political minister. So there's

not that ranking that would even allow for some protection through the equal

ranking of a deputy minister.

We'll have people following a narrow set of guidelines; they'll be

restricted in their focus in appeals. Rather than having the kind of

negotiated appeal process that we have had in the past where there's

involvement of the various employee groups, and a procedure there, this

will be a process determined through directives by the commission.

Let's go through some of the other sections that the minister touched on.

Section 5 is a very important one because it replaces

section 20 of the old

act. We heard the minister.... If we get Hansard and count the number of

times he said "merit," he probably mentioned it 20 or 25 times. He's

very concerned with attempting to communicate a political message that somehow

merit is not going by the wayside — when of course it is. There has been a consultative

committee on merit which was close to reaching agreement on how merit is determined

and defined within the public service with respect to the various occupational

groups it would be applied to. The government decided to forgo all those negotiated

arrangements and discussions and all the progress that had been made, and the

attempt to meet a mutually agreed upon resolution, and has decided to arbitrarily

define merit in terms of a Social Credit definition.

We know how the Social Credit would weight merit factors. They certainly wouldn't

be the kinds of things that would be determined by any other independent body

looking at maximum qualifications and striving for excellence within the public

service for the delivery of services to the people of the province. A biologist

to be hired may not.... It may not be good enough that a person be totally

qualified for the position, be fully acquainted with the ungulates in the area,

the wildlife management, the legislation, all of the factors that may be required

in the performance of that particular posted biologist position. It just may

be blown into someone's ear that, in addition to the kinds of skill levels

that person has, he is also Social Credit. How would that be dealt with by the

Public Service Commission when they beard appeals from other well-qualified

candidates — equally qualified candidates? How would it be determined that that

person was politically sympathetic, that that person was willing to take instructions

or direction from those currently representing Social Credit in power? We're

moving into a very shady area of public administration.

In the press release that the minister issued when he notified us that he was

going to proceed with a rewrite of the Public Service Act, he argued that the

Public Service Commission was in a conflict situation because they had to hear

appeals and function in some kind of appeal process when they had been involved

in the selection and recruitment process. If there was a problem there, it could

have been dealt with in many ways other than taking the hiring of government

employees unto themselves.

I don't think any modern jurisdiction — and he's referring to other

places in Canada.... We'll certainly be looking very carefully into

exactly what is in place in the jurisdictions that he's mentioned. But merit

is at the centre, because merit means that the best possible person is hired

for the position without any application of a political factor. That's really

what merit means in the public service. It means that we look at the job to

be filled, the qualifications required — educational standards, experience levels,

other kinds of knowledge on the job, etc. — and appraisals, evaluations, past

work record and so on. Those factors are looked at to see if the person is a

candidate for the position that the public requires.

Now it states in the act that the Provincial Secretary.... A Socred

politician will write directives regarding hiring, selection and all of

these other eight or nine major aspects of public administration —

matters respecting discipline. suspension, dismissal, maintenance of

personnel, management information systems, monitoring and auditing of

all personnel functions.... Only in

section 2(

d) does he even make

passing reference to the fact that there may be a negotiated contract

in place with the bargaining agents of the

[ Page 5012 ]

and employee expenses and allowances, subject to any applicable provisions of

a collective agreement.... Why isn't that particular clause, "subject

to any applicable provisions of a collective agreement," attached to some

of those other items under

section 2 of the act, under personnel management?

I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. The Provincial Secretary wants to be able

to politically determine who gets hired in certain areas.

In the past, to work on the highways of the province — and I have old clippings

from 1946....

HON. MR. CHABOT: I wasn't here.

MR. HANSON: You were here in a different form, different name, but you

were here.

Let me just read a couple of these to you. The old coalition was

very much into political patronage — who got hired. You had to have the

right card in your pocket to get hired by the government. Maybe not in

all of the positions, but it sure seemed to help at certain times. One

of the things that W.A.C. Bennett seemed to get a lot of kudos for as

the administrator of a civil service commission.... This was before his

time as Premier, but there was a new civil service act. Let me just

read you one of the clippings from the Times of 1945 — before it became the Times-Colonist . It says:

"One of the measures which has engaged the earnest

consideration of the British Columbia Legislature at the session now in

its closing hours is that which puts the administration of the civil

service on a new and more efficient basis.

"It is all to the good that this province's coalition

administration is leading the way in removing" — this is important, Mr.

Speaker — "what some may consider the stigma attaching to a 'reward-for-party-service

job.'"

That's what it was in 1945. The cabinet carried out the

hiring function of government, and, in the popular mind among the people of

this province, it was a "reward-for-party-service job."

[3:15]

In the last few years, notwithstanding the kinds of protections that

exist in legislation and the Public Service Commission and the

Government Employee Relations Bureau and so on, we have seen political

interference in the hiring and recruitment process.

Mr. Tozer had no business becoming a government agent. Mr. Bennett's

shirt-tail relative was hired as a government agent in this province.

Shame! Little did we know, Mr. Speaker, that a couple of years later

the Socred government would attempt to enshrine in law the right to

reward for party service through public administration. The Maritimes,

years back, were reputed to operate on that basis, but here we are, Mr.

Speaker, in 1985 embarking on this type of a process.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Maybe that's true, Mr. Member, that now that we rank

at the bottom of the scale along with Newfoundland on almost every economic

and social indicator, the one to bring in line is public administration and

public policy development and the administration of our public service.

Mr. Speaker, the merit categories are outlined in the bill. Let me

just point out what they are. In

section 5 they refer to the

applicant's education, skills, knowledge, experience, past work

performance and years of continuous service in the public service.

Fine. Sounds great, except that the weighing of those factors is a very

rigorous and sophisticated public administration discipline. It has to

be determined with the advice and assistance and consultation and

negotiation with those individuals who know and are acquainted with the

kinds of skill levels and the kind of factors that are required to

perform a particular job.

I alluded to the example of the labourer who should have the opportunity to

become a truck driver. There should be a flow that would allow that to occur.

But the many hundreds of occupational groupings within the public service, if

past work performance or past work experience happened to be working at Social

Credit headquarters in Richmond — and we've seen that kind of approach....

That is the pitfall that I am pointing out to you, Mr. Speaker.

So in

section 5 we don't have the definition of merit as being something

that is negotiated with those who best understand the work involved in performing

that function. We have instead a top-down approach where the Socred cabinet

ministers will determine what merit is. It will be put on a directive. It will

be sent to the various ministries and they will then follow through on the hiring

on that basis.

Section 5(4) will effectively provide the government personnel

services division the authority to limit who can apply for a vacancy.

They will have the power to limit applications to workers of a specific

occupational group, positional level or organizational unit.

Section 5(4) also allows for ministries to be able to restrict job vacancies

to workers in that ministry. What are the implications of those kinds of new

directions and regulations?

Section 6 of the act, the probation period.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Do that in committee.

MR. HANSON: Fine, we'll do that in committee,

Section 7, commission established. There's nothing in the way the

language of this particular clause is framed to really state clearly

the independence of this commission. We don't have to use much

imagination in this House to see a commission of, say, Mr. Eckardt, Mr.

Bonner and Mr. Campbell.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Clay Perry. Sabatino.

MR. HANSON: That would be nice.

The independence of the commission is not clear. Not only is there no longer

a rule, an impartial, removed, arm's length hiring process, but it is now

directly within the directive-formulating function of the cabinet. We don't

know anything about the independence of the commission; all we know is that

they will hear appeals in some process yet to be determined.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That will be in a directive.

MR. HANSON: It will, will it?

Section 9 provides the commission with the authority to review a

selection decision pursuant to

section 5(

l) only. In other words, the

appeals appear to be limited to hiring,

[ Page

5013 ]

selection and appointment. That is the narrow focus that the commission will have.

For example, a person in Prince George applies for a position — say a member

in your own constituency, Mr. Speaker. Let's just say a top-notch biologist,

specializing in wolves, applies for a position, and receives a note that they

were not the successful candidate. They see a directive with the minister's

signature on it, or the commission's directive, stating: "You must

within certain time limits file your appeal." What is that process? Who

pays? Who brings that person in? What sort of recourse does the person have?

It certainly means that people who have some kind of geographic proximity to

the position may have some advantage as well.

So there are many clauses that we want answers for, and we'll be dealing

with those in committee stage. But the principle of the bill and the objection

we have to this act is that it reintroduces political interference into the

process for hiring government workers. It is that old line attaching a reward-for-party-service

job that we saw in the clippings from the Victoria Times of 1945, page 9.

It's a serious thing. It's something that raises a sense of foreboding.

It's not limited to those working directly for the provincial government,

but to all those other organizations, such as colleges, correctional institutions

and so on. There's a whole series on pages 6 to 9 that indicate all of the

various legislative changes that will flow from this consolidation of this hiring-without-just-cause

bill. That is our concern: it will be hiring without just cause.

Mr. Speaker, we see no reason for this bill. The motivation has to be political.

There is no argument that can be made by looking at comparative jurisdictions

or efficiencies — whatever language they choose to use to justify taking the

hiring of the public service unto themselves.

The delegation of staffing, of hiring, to people who may be

politically motivated in the different ministries, or at that political

level, is an inappropriate way to do the public's business. We oppose

it. We see that it opens the way for favouritism. Politicians should

not be in the position where they can on a daily basis be in the

bargaining units of the public service, appointing people on the basis

of partisan politics and not on the most rigorous and sophisticated

definitions and weighting factors of merit. We have very serious

concerns about the selection and recruitment process to be adopted

under this act.

There's nothing really in the commission definition....

I'm the designated speaker, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's always appreciated if the member would advise us if he is designated. Please proceed.

MR. HANSON: We have concerns about the language which frames the Public

Service Commission, because it doesn't indicate, in any way, that it is

an independent tribunal. I mentioned the ranking earlier. Can the commission

be over-ruled by a deputy minister or the minister? Of course the answer that

we conclude with is yes. The determination of merit is something we're very

concerned about as well. We feel that the definition of merit should be determined

through some very sophisticated negotiation process which brings together those

who know what is required in the position with the independent administrators

of the public service.

We don't know what motivated the government in the changing of this

act other than to take unto themselves the authority to hire with the

introduction of the political dimension. There is no other reason for

it that we can see, and there is no other language.... We have not been

able, from the minister's comments, to determine any justification for

it. A government has a tremendous power when it has the authority to

hire individuals, particularly in a time when the economy of British

Columbia reflects so accurately the failed economic directions and

policies of Social Credit.

[3:30]

Any school of public administration could have given advice. The best thing

a provincial government, a federal government or a municipal government should

have is an independent arm's-length body that oversees the non-partisan

hiring practices of its administration. The potential is so great for abuse,

and the government then will be so vulnerable, that we will have the inept functioning

of our public service manifesting itself in the services that we should be providing

at the best possible level to the public of this province.

We will be speaking at length in the committee stage of the bill, clause by

clause, about the objections that we have. There are so many strenuous questions

raised by this bill and the way it has been introduced, without any real advance

notice to the various individual organizations involved....

HON. MR. CHABOT: They've had it since Thursday of last week.

MR. HANSON: They've had it since last Thursday. We would take

a piece of legislation that's been on the books, with periodic

amendments, which is central to the way the people's services of this

province are provided.... The deputy minister and the minister would

fire out a news release and a copy of the bill just hours before it's

introduced in this chamber. Mr. Speaker, what's the rush? Why the

haste? They want to get a handle on this hiring thing. They want to get

a handle on these provisions. It's a powerful handle too. They've had

it since last Thursday, and here we are at Monday, and the pressure....

Today it's the first item of business that comes forward.

If you're going to change the way in which the public service functions

in the province, it should be as the result of studies, hearings, consultation

and getting the best possible advice. Instead we had probably a couple of political

advisers saying: "Faced with the low standings in the polls and the fact

that we are the most hated government in all of Canada, that we may be defeated

in the next election, notwithstanding the moving of the goal posts and the creation

of more seats, notwithstanding all of those factors, the political advice is:

get control of the pork barrel; get control of the hiring and recruitment policies

of government so that we can hire directly, so that the public service can be

an arm of one political party and not function for the good of all the people

of this province."

Public service, by its very nature, is supposed to be removed from

politics. It's not supposed to be the servant of a political party. But

this will make it a servant, an arm of a political party. Layers of

protection for the public are gone, We talk often in this chamber of

the right to education, the right to vote. People of this province also

have the right to work in the public service if they have the

appropriate qualifications and so on to apply for those positions; the

right

[ Page 5014 ]

to be hired into public service without political

interference. What political party you belong to is not a factor in

determining merit.

When a political minister has the authority to issue directives around the

hiring selection and recruitment, that person then has the power to make determinations

which will introduce politics. That can be done very subtly. It can be rationalized

very subtly in the scope of a posting: defining terms and qualifications or

job descriptions in such a way that they apply only to a political friend. They

can cut the job posting description to fit the political cloth that is there.

That shouldn't happen. If that happens, we're moving back to 1945 where

we had, as I said, reward for party service as a part of the merit principle

in this province.

Mr. Speaker, there are many detailed clauses that we'll be speaking on

later, but when we're discussing the philosophy of this act — the so-called

principle contained in this act — I think we see a very dangerous principle

indeed. I know I've stated it, but I think it must be stated over and over

again that this government is taking unto itself the power to hire individuals

into the public service in a direct way without an independent commission of

people of the stature of Art Richardson, a revered career government employee

of high stature. There are others of his stature as well who have functioned

in that capacity. Whatever names come flying back and forth across this floor,

Mr. Richardson, a very able chairperson of the commission, was outside of any

political direction. Another is Mr. Higgins, an individual who was equally well

respected. From my experience, whether from employees or managers or people

within this Legislature on both sides of the House, Mr. Dick Higgins, when he

was functioning in the Public Service Commission, was beyond reproach. No one

questioned their recruitment and hiring policies or whether they'd hired

the right person through their responsibilities. It never occurred.

In this Legislature we've employed people of the stature of Mr. Wallace,

someone respected by both sides of the House, and one who performed in the best

interests of the public service and the people of this province. We're moving

away from that, and it's something that every person in this province should

reflect upon. What does it mean when a political party has the power to hire

people to work in Riverview Hospital? To work in Woodlands? To work in the jails?

To work in all public services? What does it mean that a political party hires?

What does it mean when they determine merit, when they decide what the weighted

factors are for the position? They don't know. They're not experts in

public administration or industrial relations. When it comes to industrial relations,

they're provocateurs. They approach industrial relations to see what political

benefit they can get by scapegoating one group against another. "Let's

put the nurses in the barrel today," they say. "Let's go after

them. Let's go after the public service. Let's go after the teachers."

That's their approach. What can it do for them in the polls? They use the

public service to attack. It's the popular thing to do, to perpetuate certain

myths and take advantage of them.

You know what, Mr. Speaker? Public employees can't speak back. They can't

fight back, by oath. They're fired if they fight back. This government has

always been very tough. It's like a heavyweight boxing match and fighting

a person who hasn't got sight. That's their approach. You don't

have to take my word for it; just look at the last few years, how one group

after another has been singled out and pummelled, for their political advantage.

It might be politically popular to pound the teachers or the nurses, but I think

it's gutless. I think any politician who tries to win his political epaulettes

by pounding public employees is gutless, because they can't fight back,

by law. We hear it every day from that side of the House.

We have a dangerous thing happening in the province of British

Columbia. We don't have the power to stop it. We only have 22 members

on this side of the House. As our leader has often stated, that

government has 49 percent of the popular vote as of May 1983, and we

have 45 percent, but with our 45 percent we have none of the political

power in this Legislature. We can say to that minister that this bill

is ill-conceived and subject to abuse, that whether he's the minister

or not — he may not be around — that kind of law which puts that power

in the hands of a cabinet minister, to allow him to interfere directly

in the hiring of all government employees, is dangerous. It's anathema

to democracy, to impartiality, and to the merit principle. It has no

place in British Columbia. It has no place in a modern, sophisticated,

democratic state. Think, Mr. Speaker, of having other political parties

with this kind of.... Isn't there the Gaglardi principle or something?

You'd want to see whether you'd want that kind of power in....

We don't need this kind of dictatorial power in a politician's

hands. It will lead to abuse. We've seen indications of it already.

It's interference that we don't need. It won't make for a better public

service. It won't meet our goal of providing excellence, attempting to

achieve the best possible services at the best possible and most

efficient costs.

That's why we have the trouble we have in our schools and other

institutions. It's because of the direct centralization of authority

and decision-making in the hands of those individuals over there. The

people in the school districts could manage their affairs very well

until this government took all their authority and decision-making

away. Local curriculum development, local funding, local priorities,

local regional needs, ethnic needs, etc. are all gone. If there's

anything we and the public have learned from this government, it's that

the more these people centralize and take things unto themselves, the

more they mess it up and fail. They're incompetent. They don't have the

skill to do it. So why do they want it? Because they feel that if they

can make the public service of British Columbia an arm of the Social

Credit Party, they have a possibility of getting re-elected. That's

what it's all about: jobs for the boys.

[3:45]

It is very dangerous. They want it to pass quickly, and they don't want

much fuss. They don't want the public to know about it. They don't want

them to be educated about the implications of it. They want it passed so they

have that awesome power. There is no legitimate justification for this bill.

We oppose it in principle. It's going in the wrong direction. It's a

retrograde step, Mr. Speaker; it has no place in British Columbia in 1985. If

they want to make changes, they should go to the interested groups. They should

hold public hearings. There should be an all-party committee of this House to

examine the best administration of the public service for the people of the

province.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: As the minister said: "The pork barrel." You string

people along with the promise of employment if they toe the line. That's

what it's all about. It's a very cynical

[ Page

5015 ]

way, but it's very much a Social Credit way of political business.

I'll conclude my remarks on second reading. I think I have reiterated our

basic objections a number of times. I look forward to moving amendments or making

changes or appealing to the wisdom and the best faith of the minister to change

or withdraw this bill. It really is not required. He should undertake a consultative

process with the people of the province instead of trying this massive power

grab to take over the hiring process in the provincial government.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting Bill 35, with reservation.

The reservation. of course, is that the bill can be cleaned up in committee

stage. The reservation is that there is room for abuse, but then again it's

very difficult to bring in legislation where there isn't room for abuse.

I don't think you can look behind a piece of legislation and then talk about

the motivations of the people who are going to govern it. We have to make our

decisions by the actions taken, as opposed to presupposing that there's

going to be pork barrelling, presupposing that it's going to be a day for

the Social Credit to hire every Social Crediter that ever came down the tube.

I'd like to point out a few of my reservations, after having said that

in principle I support the bill. When I first looked at it, I thought: is this

what I think it is? Is this what the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson)

said it's going to be? That was my first reaction. But I took this piece

of legislation to people whom I trust as fair British Columbians with a long

history in industrial relations in this province. And I said: "Would you

take a look at the Public Service Act, Bill 35, and tell me what you think?"

The reports I had back were that it's not a bad piece of legislation, but

it is a bill that could be abused if not dealt with properly.

I'd like to deal with a number of areas that I think could clean up this

bill. I ask the minister to comment as to whether he would undertake to make

some of the changes that I'm going to suggest in these closing remarks.

One area where I see a problem is in the area of appeal,

section 9: you appeal

back to the same commission that has made the decision in the first place. It

seems to me that the bill could be cleaned up to a great extent in

section 1.

You could not only have "commission" mean the Public Service Commission

established under

section 7, but you could have another line that said "appeal

commission means the appeal commission established under

section 9." In other

words, there should be two separate commissions. There should be the Public

Service Commission and there should be an appeal commission. I don't think

you can have the same commission that has made the decision in the first place

hearing the appeals. It could possibly be a commission as small as three; that's

the lowest number. It will probably be bigger, but it could be as small as three,

according to the legislation. One of the commissioners can act with the authority

of the whole commission in making decisions. Can you imagine an appeal to that

decision coming back to the board of three and there not being peer-group pressure

within that three-member commission to toe the line?

Legislation must not only be fair; it must appear to be fair to the public

before they will accept it. It wouldn't take too much to make those changes,

to have a separate appeal commission to deal with the appeal procedure under

section 9. It wouldn't cost a great deal, because there wouldn't be

that many appeals. We're not looking at an appeal procedure like there is

in the Workers' Compensation Board, or the number of appeals under the Labour

Relations Board. There would be very few appeals. It wouldn't have to be

a commission that sat and received a fat salary all year round. It could be

a commission that was paid for the days that it needed to sit, but it would

sure be a fairer way of doing business.

Before coming into the Legislature, all legislators that I know of were calling

for a new spirit of cooperation in running this Legislature. It would seem to

me to be a good indicator that the spirit of cooperation is alive and well if

the government would accept some ideas from this side of the House to clean

up this legislation and to make it acceptable to everyone on a consensus basis.

I agree with the hon. first member for Victoria that maybe this bill should

be referred to the appropriate committee of this House, to take a look at regulations

that are going to be applied to this legislation, because that's where the

abuse can come in. We really won't know what the government has in mind

as specific details until we see the regulations to this legislation — and also

the directives, as the minister points out. We won't know until we see the

directives; we won't know until we see the regulations. But surely this

would be an opportunity for cooperation like we've never had before.

In reading this bill, I don't see where it takes away any of the existing

contractual arrangements of the British Columbia Government Employees' Union

or other unions dealing with the government. What it does do, though, is to

preclude certain matters from being negotiated in the future — for instance,

the probation period. Up until now it could have been an item that was on the

table for negotiation between management and union. That will no longer be an

item that can be on the table, because it's going to be law and therefore

not negotiable. But I don't see that it's taking away any of the existing

rights or contractual obligations between the employer and the employee. It

does curtail, in a number of areas, what can be negotiated in the future, of

what are now negotiable items.

It wouldn't take too much to go from an acceptable piece of legislation

to an excellent piece of legislation. It would mean that there should be some

changes to the bill itself and another commission to solely hear appeals. It

wouldn't take much rewriting of the bill — one line in

section 1 and a couple

of lines in

section 9, and the job would be done. We could turn this over to

the appropriate committee of the House, to take a look at some recommendations

in terms of regulations for this bill. I would even go so far as to say that

the government itself — cabinet — could still make those regulations, but at

least we in the House would feel that we had some input. Therefore the people

that we represent would have had some input into what is an important bill.

The minister could indicate in his closing remarks whether he would be willing

to make the changes to the appeal process. Whether he would be willing to send

this bill into a House committee before going into the Committee of the Whole

House, so that there could be some input from an all-party milieu, so that

we could finally say, yes, we are cooperating with one another to make this

House work better in a more orderly fashion. This is the government's chance,

Mr. Speaker, to prove to the people of this province that they are serious when

they are talking about cooperation.

In the years that I've been in this House, I don't think I've seen

more than five times when the government, whether it was the government

that I was in or the present government, has accepted an amendment from

across the floor. I think I'm stretching it to say five. When we do get

to the committee

[ Page 5016 ]

stage, I'm going to be putting forward a couple.... As long as we don't

do it tomorrow; I'll try to get them ready for tomorrow. They're probably

amendments that the minister has to make anyway, because it might change the

intent of a section, and therefore it would be ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker.

Cooperation can be proved in this debate; it cannot just be something that

is talked about. It would give the private members on both sides of the House

a chance to prove to the people of this province that we can cooperate with

one another. It would give the government a chance to put its money where its

mouth is, to put its principles where its mouth is, and it would also give the

official opposition an opportunity to prove whether they're serious about

cooperating. I think the government would like to know that. This bill is an

opportunity to show the people of this province that we have them in mind when

we discuss legislation in this House, or whether we only have ourselves in mind

and our own political parties. It will give us that opportunity. When the minister

sums up, he will be the one that will send the signal to this House of whether

there is indeed a spirit of cooperation.

An appeal commission should be set up separately from the commission

— changes to

section 1 and

section 9. The minister could also say

whether he's willing — he and his government — to send this bill,

before it goes to committee, to the appropriate committee of the House

to have an all-party committee come back with some recommendations on

what regulations should possibly attend this bill. We're going to have

to wait to see whether the minister's directives are the kind that mean

abuse or not.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I see where this bill could be a little more honest

with the people of British Columbia than bills we've had in the past. I

think it's appropriate that government from time to time appoint people

by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council — in other words by order-in-council —

to carry on jobs for the people of this province. I don't think it's

always necessary to go through the civil service hiring route. I think it would

say to the people of this province: "Here is a political appointment, not

necessarily someone from your own political party but a political appointment

by the government to do a job." Judge the job on how the person does the

job rather than the circuitous route that all governments take — putting into

place a piece of legislation that is supposed to be non-partisan, and then every

government from the dawn of civilization and the supposedly non-partisan civil

Service working to get around it.

[4:00]

Let's have it out in the open: who is a political appointment; who

isn't a political appointment. I don't see any great danger in this

bill if we're finally putting something in the open air for everybody

to look at. As I said, I'll be supporting this bill. I'm not looking

behind the legislation at the motivations of government; I'm taking

government at face value in terms of motivation. I'm looking at the

piece of legislation itself and saying it's not a bad piece of

legislation. I have certain reservations; I think those reservations

could be cleared up if the minister shows that he's willing to move in

a number of areas to show cooperation and to make this bill into a good

piece of legislation.

MR. GABELMANN: The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) got some things

right and some things wrong. Maybe the best thing about that is that it's

a good argument for increased research funding for members of the House. I won't

belabour the point, but the member for Prince Rupert, I think, misinterpreted

the role and function of the Public Service Commission as it will be established

by this legislation.

It, in fact, is an appeal body and has no other authority whatsoever, and that's what is wrong with the legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what he said.

MR. GABELMANN: No, the member for Prince Rupert was

suggesting that there should be a neutral three-person appeal

commission. There is; it's called the Public Service Commission under

this act, and its only job is to hear appeals. What we need in this

province for the non-political appointments in government — and it's

this point upon which I agree with the member for Prince Rupert — is an

independent Public Service Commission, or some agency, whatever it

would be called, which would make those appointments and grant those

promotions and movements within the existing public service.

The minister said that what this bill does.... These aren't his

exact words, but I was amused by his reference to bringing us in line,

in effect, with New Brunswick and Quebec in terms of their legislation.

If ever in this country we have seen examples of patronage at work from

every level of government it's New Brunswick and Quebec. The grader

foreman changes when the government changes, Social Credit stopped it

here in 1952, but this new coalition wants to bring it back.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the motivation of the legislation. I

understand that there's a genuine and well-meaning attempt to try to

rationalize the cumbersome process that has existed in the duality of

GERB and the Public Service Commission and the distance from management

that was imposed by that kind of structure. I understand all of that.

There were lots of problems, and I'm not here to stand up and say that

the system we had was correct, But what the government either fails to

understand, or has deliberately chosen to, is that by establishing the

function of the Public Service Commission as a division of the Ministry

of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services, they have, in

fact, established a political determination in respect of hirings and

in respect of Promotions and movement within the existing work force of

the government. That's the objection.

I have a whole series of other objections about the bill. They will

be canvassed in detail in committee stage, I am going to talk about

some of the more important ones during this debate in second reading.

What we need to understand about this legislation.... If only one message

goes out to the public about this particular bill, it should be that we have

departed from the principle that people who work in the non-political part of

government, which is the overwhelming majority of them.... They will now

have their fate determined — subject to appeal, yes — by the ministries, under

the direction of the Provincial Secretary's ministry. That opens the process

to patronage, whether it's designed or not. That's the objection that

all but one member on this side of the House have with this legislation. There

will no longer be an independent, detached-from-government management of the

functions of hiring and internal promotion. That's the major concern.

[ Page

5017 ]

Mr. Speaker, there are some things that happen under the aegis of government

that need to be independent from government, The Speaker's chair and Speaker's

office are the first and most obvious. Others include the auditor-general and

the ombudsman. I would also suggest the electoral reform commission, and there

are other areas that need to be separate from the line management of various

ministries. I would argue — members of our caucus are arguing — that management

of the public service also needs to be detached from the political process of

line management in various ministries, which is governed in the final analysis

by the political minister, as it should be in most areas of government. But

there are some things where it shouldn't be, where in fact the minister

should not have that political say.

Despite well-meaning intentions expressed in several sections in

terms of appointments on merit and so on — and I grant that there is

some intention — there is not enough protection. The fundamental flaw

is that the final authority is an agent of the ministry of the

Provincial Secretary, and therefore of the minister, and not an

independent, publicly accountable — perhaps accountable to the

Legislature as a whole — agency such as a public service commission.

That's not to suggest that the existing structure is perfect. It

isn't. I trust the minister won't come back at me and argue that I want

to keep what we've got now. I see the flaws in the system. I watch

collective bargaining. I see how management things work, and it's not

working, It needs to be changed. But if you're going to make the

change, maintain the independence of the agency which does the hiring

and all of the management functions in terms of promotion and what not.

There is wide-open space in this legislation for political patronage in a way

that — not totally, but in large measure — spelled the end of the coalition

government in the late forties and early fifties. It was one of the things,

among others, that W.A.C. Bennett traded on very effectively in establishing

the long popularity that he had in this province. He was perceived, following

the '52 election, to have eliminated patronage within the public service.

Whether he did or not is another issue, but he was perceived to have taken on

that challenge. I think that was successfully accomplished in large measure.

We are slipping back to the days of the coalition with this kind of legislation,

and I just want to echo the comments made by the first member for Victoria (Mr.

Hanson). The bill, intentionally or not — and I would love to believe it wasn't

intentional, but I have some trouble with that — opens the door to patronage

in this province simply because there's no independence for the people who

make the decisions.

I want to talk about a few of the more major concerns that I have with the

legislation, apart from that overriding issue of patronage.

Section 2 is, at

best, ambiguous. My reading of it, without advice, is that, with the exception

of subsection (d), all those matters are precluded from bargaining, should the

government choose to issue directives on those issues. There might be arguments

made in some cases that those are management rights. But you can't argue

that all of those other issues are management rights. Rather than make a long

speech about that particular thing now, I'll do it in committee, where we

can have some exchange, so that I can understand what it is the minister wants

to establish by

section 2 and what he means by the word "directives,"

because I don't know what that means. Then we can have a proper debate about

what limitations on collective bargaining are imposed by that particular section.

Let me just back up a little bit and say that one other serious problem with

the legislation is in what it doesn't contain. It has eliminated a whole

range and a whole raft of provisions that were in the Public Service Act and

which, for the most part don't impact — if I can make a verb out of a noun

— negatively on unionized employees, because they are protected by the collective

agreement. But there are a considerable number of public servants who are not

in one of the bargaining units and who, in fact, don't have collective bargaining

rights at the present time. Their protections have been in large measure, if

not totally, in the act.

Just to pick one out of the air, think of severance and how much is granted.

That's now gone. Presumably that's to be bargained. People in bargaining

units have got it. But people who aren't in bargaining units now are seemingly

without those kinds of protections granted by the more inclusive provisions

of the old Public Service Act, the one now being repealed. So I have some very

real concerns for the impact on this legislation in its general application

for those people who are not represented by one of the three bargaining sectors

under the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Continuing on

section 2, I talked about the questions of what can be bargained;

I worry very much about what that does to the grievance procedure. I hope, specifically,

that the minister will assure us all that the grievance procedure isn't

wiped out, and the grievance provisions in collective agreements aren't

wiped out. as the possible result of a directive under

section 2 of....

HON. MR. CHABOT: No way.

MR. GABELMANN: He says, "No way," and I hope that's to be

the case, but I don't know that the legislation guarantees that. I

have, frankly, more confidence in the words of the law than I do in the

words of the minister. Surprised?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: That's right. It could be that we won't always

have this very perfect minister in this job. We might get somebody who has some

political motivations, instead of non-partisan objectives like this minister

has. Having said that, how absurd it sounds, eh? Therefore I worry now, too,

Mr. Speaker, about the minister's word. I would prefer to have these kinds

of protections guaranteed by law, if they cannot be.... I prefer that they

be done by collective agreement, frankly. That would be my first approach. And

if they aren't there, they should certainly be protected by law.

Section 5, carrying on — and I'm not going to be long about it. I worry

about the whole concept of a public service now open to having very different

standards in different ministries. When you have policies being established

ministry by ministry, in terms of....

Interjection.

[ Page 5018 ]

MR. GABELMANN: The directives address that? This is the

value, Mr. Speaker — and that's why I'm going to be brief on these

other issues — of committee stage; I want to consider what he said, and

be able to have further debate about it, but we can't do it in this

context of second reading debate.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: That's an old trick.

One of the very serious concerns about

section 5 is that it appears to restrict

the rights of a public servant, who lives, for example, in Fort St. John, from

applying — if it's so directed — for a job opening in Vancouver, because

the government is now going to have the right to say what restrictions will

apply on promotion and advancement within the public service. We lose the principle

that people can enter the public service at an entry-level job and can work

their way up through the public service with a view, someday, to becoming deputy

minister. That's the old, traditional kind of role that we have seen in

the public service, and it's now gone, with this particular section. The

fact that occupational groups or position levels or geographical constraints

can be placed upon promotion.... Government can now say to an individual: "You

may have all of the qualifications to move from your job in Fort St. John to

a better job in Vancouver or Victoria, but we're not going to let you."

That's not right. It's wrong, within principles of public service administration,

in my view. I really do hope that that will be addressed in the committee stage

process, with a view, perhaps, to some amendments.

Let me tell you what can happen under

section 6, Mr. Speaker.

[4:15]

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: We'll get back to that in committee stage.

Let me tell you what can happen under

section 6, as I read the legislation.

An employee can have worked for the government for 10 or 15 years with a perfect

record, can apply for a promotion or a transfer, and can — not necessarily will,

but can — go back on probation and therefore be subject to dismissal. Simply

because

section 6 allows probation to be reinstated for transferred or promoted

employees. There is no protection. It might be that what the minister wanted

to have in the legislation was some probationary time for the person in their

new job, so that the probation applied to the new position. It doesn't say

that. A person can lose their employment. If they lose that job, they don't

burnp back down necessarily; they can, but there's no protection for that.

The government has the ability, as I read it, to get rid of somebody they don't

like by promoting them. Maybe that's not the intention; I'd love to

believe it wasn't the intention, but it appears to be allowed under

section

6 of this legislation.

In addition, what we have established here is this principle of the probationary

period being six months equivalent. With the increased amount of part-time work,

and the encouragement of part-time work in our society, you're going to

have people who will be working for the government for a year — in some cases

for more than a year — whose probation will not be up. That affects directly

a variety of benefits under the collective agreement. For example, maternity

protection or short-term illness protection will be lost to those part-time

workers for a year or perhaps two years, while they attempt to complete their

probationary period. We don't need to wait two years to do an assessment

on an employee who happens to be a part-time employee.

Again, it seems like a nice clean way, a neat kind of package. In drafting

a piece of legislation like this, it seems clean and appropriate. It seems fair

on the surface, but it isn't, because there are a great many benefits that are

not available to probationary employees which are available to people who have

passed their probation. As I say, that's again going to most likely impact on

women. It's women who are affected primarily by maternity benefits — we

haven't yet got to the European standard of letting men benefit from those

provisions. Nevertheless, the lengthened probationary period is something that

is going to impact on women in particular, and in the nursing profession it's

a particular concern.

Section 7 seems a bit weak in terms of its drafting. The commission is established

but doesn't really have any terms of reference. It certainly doesn't

seem to have any independence. It reports not to the House or to some neutral

agency but to the minister.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, it is. Right. I told you earlier that I had some

complaints and concerns about the old.... It is, but it doesn't spell

its terms out clearly enough for my satisfaction. It really doesn't even

tell us whether or not they're full-time. Not that that's a particular

concern one way or the other; I don't know how much work will be involved

in this particular job But it does not seem to spell out in proper detail how

this whole commission is going to be appointed and how it's going to be

accountable.

Section 9 raises the possibility that there won't ever be any appeals to

the commission, because the commission is going to have the right to determine

how costs are going to be applied. Under this section, the commission could

say to every appellant: "If you fail, even though you think you've

got a good case — and it's not frivolous, so we're going to hear it

— you're going to have to bear the costs. Not only your own costs of coming

down to a commission hearing, but also the cost of the appeal borne by the government."

It's going to be open to the commission to apply costs however they determine

those costs should be applied. They could very simply establish a rule that

says that failed appeals will be charged to the appellant. That's wrong.

If an appellant believes they have a case, and the commission judges that it's

not frivolous or vexatious, then that appellant should feel free to make the

appeal without worrying about the financial implications beyond his or her own

particular costs. It seems a fair principle, one that I expect the minister

would agree with. But the legislation, I think, is too vague. It's either

sloppily written, or my

interpretation is incorrect — which is always open,

too. I suspect from the way it's written that the policy of cost can be

determined by the commission, which could make their job quite easy, because

nobody is going to appeal.

Section 16. I'd like to know from the minister whether this is the

definitive statement on the government's policy on mandatory retirement.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No change in policy.

[ Page

5019 ]

MR. GABELMANN: That means that the policy we've had on the

whole philosophical question of mandatory retirement stays as it was,

and that the government is signaling that it's not yet ready to come

down with its position on mandatory retirement.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: It's premature. You're scared to take on the political issue.

One of the concerns which can be raised in any number of places, I

guess, is the concern for unrepresented employees — people who do not

have severance provisions built into their employment contract with the

government, Also, there is a whole range of people who are not eligible

because they're considered to be management employees who aren't OIC.

Without getting into the details of it in the debate, there is a whole

range of people who work for the government, and until now they have

had their provisions of severance pay protected. It's spelled out in

the Public Service Act. They will no longer have that particular

protection, Presumably they have the right — they always have the

right, I suppose — to go to court on it. But that's an expensive and

ridiculous option. All we need to have are some kinds of specific

policies.

Those are some of the major concerns that I have about the

legislation. In wrapping up, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the

importance of all of those issues, in my own mind they all pale into

insignificance when compared to the basic premise of this bill, which

is that those — hopefully — neutral functions of hiring and promoting

public servants have now become politicized under the Ministry of

Provincial Secretary. I find that deplorable. For that reason alone, I

find no difficulty at all in voting against this legislation. It's

wrong in principle for the government to take on those

responsibilities. They belong in the neutral arena, not in the

political one.

MR. LEA: I rise under standing order 42. I think I was misunderstood.

I agree with the member for North Island that the commission is there solely

to hear appeals, but I don't think that that should be the appeal body.

There should be a further step in the appeal procedure: when one commissioner

hears a case and makes a decision, it shouldn't be appealed back to that

commission to set up. There should be another commission to hear the appeal.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member rose under standing order 42 to

state that a material part of his speech may have been misunderstood,

which is entirely appropriate to standing order 42.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, he did indicate standing order 42; it was clear to the Chair.

MR. COCKE: Let me first say that our present system is less

than perfect. I recognized that when we were government; I have

recognized it since, and I thought about it before.

It's very difficult to depoliticize the hiring and firing, if you will,

and all the attendant problems around the public service. Having said that,

I don't think that this bill takes us in the proper direction at all. I

would have suspected that the Provincial Secretary would have spent his time,

as he so often does. thoughtfully working out a system that would depoliticize

the public service situation. He did it, Mr. Speaker, over some kind of brew

that.... I have no idea of what was in it, because what we have here is

a total politicization. The Provincial Secretary hires everyone in the province

who works for the government, according to this bill.

MR. LAUK: Political boss — Tammany Hall.

MR. COCKE: That's right — he's a czar, through his deputy, Mr.

Speaker, and that is not the direction that we should have been going in. This

is a real shock to me, because that minister has never shown great signs of

politicizing in the number of years that I've been here — that's after

the hour of 12 and before the hour of five to one, but all the rest of the time

he's been pretty political. He's sure pretty political in this bill.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not true.

MR. COCKE: It is true. This bill is entirely giving over to him, and

through him to the government, the right to do anything they want vis-à-vis

hiring.

I read that merit section, and I'll tell you something: you can

interpret that any way you want. You can classify persons without or

with merit, depending upon their political stripes or their age or

whether you like their looks or any of that stuff.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You didn't listen to my speech.

[4:30]

MR. COCKE: His speech is about the same as every other speech

he's made in this House: lots of words but not too much substance,

particularly when it comes to interpreting what he's saying here. It's

clear to me and to my colleagues that what he's done is taken from an

imperfect system.... Incidentally, that imperfect system is one that

one can politicize. I agree. I'm not going to throw a lot of bouquets

at our present system. But he's made it worse. He has taken unto his

ministry the right to do all the hiring.

The appeal procedure is marvellous. He appoints the tribunal, now called the

Public Service Commission. He has only done that, I suppose, to blow smoke at

this Legislature, because it's not a Public Service Commission at all. It's

a body to whom you appeal your problems, but it's certainly not a Public

Service Commission. It's set up here and then it gives that Public Service

Commission, whom he appoints, the final word. When you sit on the Public Service

Commission you rather think that it's not a good idea to displease the minister.

Wouldn't you think that, my colleague from Nanaimo? Of course. You don't

want to anger the minister, because you will find that there's an order-in-council

the next day saying that your services are no longer required.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the act.

MR. COCKE: It's not

an act yet, thankfully, Mr. Speaker; it's

a bill. It's not

an act until the Speaker stands up and declares it

an act,

and then it won't be

an act until such time as this cabinet decides to bring

it into proclamation. But it is a bill indicating that the minister has all

the power vested in him that has been the property of the Public Service

[ Page 5020 ]

Commission, and then some. And not only to all the government

departments but also the ombudsman, the auditor-general.... All of

them have to be nice to that minister in order to get their staff.

Mr. Speaker, why couldn't this government have shown some leadership

and brought in a truly independent body to do this work? How could we

be anything but suspicious when all the power is vested in that

minister and through him to the government?

I have a number of questions that I would like to ask, but I don't fall

into the trap of asking the minister questions in second reading, because when

you do that and he answers off the record, then you really don't know what

you have of substance, do you, Mr. Speaker? So all I can do is just make a few

comments at this time, telling that minister that he should have taken this

bill and used it for something far more satisfactory than bringing it into this

House. Maybe he should have used it as a White Paper to test the public and

find out how they felt about it. But I'll bet if he did he would find that

he should be going the other way as opposed to this way.

I believe it's going to be an expensive proposition for employees. I agree

with my colleague the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) that the fastest

way you can get rid of public servants under this new proposition is promote

them, and when they don't meet the probation, can them and they're gone.

No appeal, no nothing. Read it, Mr. Member. I'm sure that that's the

way it works. So if you've got somebody upcountry somewhere who doesn't

comb his or her hair right, just give them a little promotion. They start all

over again under probation, they don't meet the probation requirements

— which can be interpreted any way you like, merit be darned; this thing on

its merit is certainly hard to interpret at best — and then they're on their

way down the road.

I think the minister should have thought this bill out far more

carefully. After all, this government now needs nothing more than

something to restore public confidence. They've lost it all. It's about

time they started working on that public confidence, and the way to do

that is to bring in good, solid, honest legislation. They've blown the

opportunity again with Bill 35. They could have been leaders in Canada,

but instead it's back to the old trough, back to the old pork barrel.

If they're Socred, they're fine, and if they're not, they don't meet

the merit requirement. This doesn't permeate just the upper echelons of

the civil service or the public service. This goes right down to clerks

1, 2, 3 and all the rest of them, The minister should hang his head for

having brought a bill like this to the Legislature.

One other comment. I was sitting here seething a little because my

colleague from North Island stole everything that I wanted to talk

about. I do think it's interesting that we've maintained what was, in

the old act, mandatory retirement at 65. A lot of people out there feel

that that mandatory retirement proposition denies civil rights to

certain human beings on the fact of the planet. I'm getting dangerously

close to that time when I might be thinking about that a good deal. One

of the things you will note, Mr. Speaker, is that it doesn't apply to

politicians, however. We apply it to the people who work for the

Legislature, who work for the people of British Columbia, but we don't

apply it to ourselves. Interesting, isn't it?

I think something has to be thought out vis-à-vis mandatory retirement.

I know that in tough times people say: "We must retire people not only

at 65, but much earlier in order to get the young people into the workforce."

I think there are other ways of doing that, and one way is to pep up an economy.

I'm not sure this bunch will ever do that. In any event, that's something

of interest to me. I don't know how it also affects consequentially pension

plans and some of the other aspects that surround retirement, but I don't

think we can get into that in second reading. That's something we will have

to ask the minister. I hope he has some ready reference, crib notes or something,

when he comes back for committee stage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have to go on and on forever just to tell you that

I feel the bill does not perform a good service for the people in this province.

I believe the bill politicizes the whole public service much more than it has

been since 1952. Give W.A.C. Bennett credit — he did his damnedest to depoliticize

that corrupt old gang that used to run this province. The Conservatives and

the Liberals and their coalition were a corrupt old gang; there's no question

of it. W.A.C. Bennett tried his best to get away from that kind of political

appointment, and this is what we get.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'll give you an example of what happens in provinces. In Saskatchewan,

my father-in-law ran the liquor store. He was an old CCFer but the Conservatives

didn't seem to mind. But when the Libs came in, in the early forties, he

and everybody else went down the tube. Had a job one day; it was gone the next.

That's the kind of world you get into when you get into the proposition

that politicizes the public service.

I recognize here that the firing element is the same as it has

always been. But I also recognize that the hiring element is much too

close to government to suit my wishes. The minister shakes his head.

Yet who hires everybody? He deputizes the hiring of every public

servant in this province, not only in his own ministry but in the

Ministries of Health, Education and every other department of

government — and some at relative arm's length from government. That is

inappropriate.

The minister can sum up when he stands to close debate. I would like

to hear what he has to say about that, and how he can defend this

rather obvious piece of politicizing that's going on. I'm not going to

wish you good luck with your comments. You can sit down now, because

I'm sure that there are other members here who are going to want to get

in and flay you just a little bit, When the minister sums up, and

possibly when we get to committee stage a few days from now, he'll be

able to answer some questions. I thank you for your very kind

attention, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MITCHELL: I think the first thing we should attack this bill on

is its leaving out the most important

section that, I believe, the administration

of W.A.C. Bennett, when he brought in a public service bill....

Section

4 of the old Public Service Act says: "The duties of the commission are

to develop and maintain a competent and efficient public service...."

That was the intent of it. You must look at the intent of any such legislation,

at the total picture and not at certain individuals or situations. This is why

I think each one of us in the Legislature must be striving continually to know

that we have, as backup people, the civil servants for each and every resident

of the province, the most competent people available. If there are any problems

with the competency of any civil servant, whether it's for a short period

of time or a

[ Page

5021 ]

long period of time, the responsibility must rest with government at

the management level, cabinet level or middle management. I think this

is the important part: no one in the opposition is against the

developing of a competent civil service. I think the public has a right

to demand that. I think we have a responsibility to ensure it. This

bill leaves out that main duty of a commission. There is no mention in

all this legislation that you are out to develop a competent civil

service.

[4:45]

There are a few of us who can remember back to the thirties and

forties, when the political corruption wielded by government in the

appointment of civil servants — and those were appointments right down

to the grader operator in each and every one of the ridings of this

province.... This bill opens that up again. This bill specifies

that the government, through the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary,

can specify and write a set of directives that lays down the

geographical area or locale an applicant must come from. Can you

imagine? In my riding they want to appoint a grader operator who

happens to be a good Social Crediter, and he might live in the small

community of Shirley. They can write a directive that the grader

operator needs certain qualifications and that he must come from

Shirley. It could be any area in your riding, Mr. Speaker. or in that

of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet). He

might have someone he wants to appoint. He writes the qualifications

and designates the area that that person should come from, or that the

application should come from. There's only one person there who may be

able to drive a grader or do a welding job and happens to be a member

of a certain political party or a certain service group. These are the

directives that can come out of one person, and this is what the

original public service bill was designed to eliminate. It was designed

to bring in competent and dedicated personnel working within the

ministry, completely divorced from the changes that may happen in this

House.

As the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) stated earlier, there

are a lot of people who have dedicated their whole lives to work in the

public service. They do come into the service with stars in their eyes.

I think this is a good thing — that people should have an opportunity

and should have the initiative to shoot for the top. But slowly the

political erosion of appointments in the civil service.... They wiped

out the deputy positions; they are now OICs. They wiped out levels all

the way down in the civil service that orders-in-council can supersede

and appointments are made. I think this is the great danger that the

public, who will not really understand what has taken place in here....

A lot of the detail that they tried to get in Bill 3 and some of the

other dirty dozen legislation that came in in July '83 has been

reworded and rechanged so that they now come up in the directives that

the minister can make through his various levels of government.

We're taking a large step backward, away from what was pioneered in the

sixties when the Public Service Act was first set up to make public servants

non-political. I think all civil servants have their political biases and their

political opinions, because they are no different than any other Canadians.

We all have what we think is right and what we think is wrong. But the competency

and the job description should not be at the whim and to change to fit the certain

vacancy that may arise. I say that the government has taken a large step backward.

Though I've never had the responsibility of making decisions, I can see

the mistakes that may have been in the original piece of legislation. I can

see the hurdles to change some of the bureaucracy that has grown and the

interpretations

of what is merit and what is qualifications. As I've said many times in

this House, what we are qualified to do an excellent job of today.... Seven

years down the road those qualifications and that job may no longer be there.

I can understand that, and that is why I have continually said in every session

since 1979, when we have some major changes to be made in any piece of legislation

that is going to affect 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 British Columbia residents,

when we are going to be able to put blinkers on the stars that some people may

have when they enter the civil service, the desire to move ahead and not feel

that they may be shuffled over here to a promotion and find that by taking that

promotion it gives the deputy minister, through the Provincial Secretary, an

opportunity to fire them.... These are the sort of fears that we don't

want to have in our civil service. We want to have people who are looking ahead

to take a promotion, to move up the ladder. I think initiative and ambition

should be something that we openly promote. I don't mean the backstabbing

that may go in the office politics that we all accept and know exists, but that

within the legislation some sound directive should be given.

This is why I say very humbly, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: this

is a serious change in our public service legislation. To do what the original

section 4 said, to build a competent civil service, I think this legislation

should be sent to a parliamentary committee and that we should invite every

person who feels that their promotion or their job description may be altered

or bent a little to sit down and give their views and to give some suggestions

based on how they feel,

I say this from an old person who believes that there are a lot of

people on the shop floor who can solve problems that management never

see. I know the minister may feel that because you've been voted into a

position, you have all the answers. I sincerely say, Mr. Speaker,

through you to the minister, that I don't think we as politicians have

all the answers, But I do say all the answers are available from the

people who are going to have to live with this legislation, who know

from firsthand experience the problems that arose under the old

legislation.

There are parts of the old legislation that should be streamlined. I

accept the minister's statement that any promotions had to go up

through the bureaucracy, and then they had to come back down through

the commission through another set of bureaucracy. I know this is

wrong. But I don't think those safeguards built into the original piece

of legislation because of the political corruption that existed under

the coalition Liberal and Conservative government should simply be

eliminated and placed in the hands of another political level.

I think the old legislation could be corrected in a safer manner for

the 40,000 British Columbia residents that are going to be living under

this. I think that the other 2.5 million people should be able to

expect a competent, fearless civil service and not have a civil service

that is running for cover, always looking over its shoulders. The

attitude of the general public is that it's not how competent you are,

but it's the way that the directive was written whether you are hired

or not.

I ask the minister to bring to his cabinet colleagues' attention

that we on this side of the House are prepared to give the time and the

effort and the input and the cooperation to

[ Page 5022 ]

look for the best piece of legislation in Canada. We are prepared to

listen to experts from the shop floor who know the problems that

existed in the old legislation. They could bring in suggestions, and we

could also bring in the expertise of personnel, management, consultants

from both private industry and from the educational halls of learning

who have studied the problems of personnel management, who understand

the various levels of what merit is and what it isn't and also those

who are prepared to bring into 1985 the new technology, to recognize

the new trades and the new trainings and the new skills that we need.

I think that a parliamentary committee, which we have under our constitution,

should be established and be activated. This is the type of legislation that

we could have good input into. We could have good input, and we could have an

excellent piece of legislation when we finished with it. I don't think that

we should jam it through and have a return of the political corruption that

took place in the civil service not that long ago, Mr. Speaker. You and I can

remember it very clearly. We grew up in that era, and we remember it. We know

friends who were fired, and we know neighbours who were hired not because of

their skills, their ability or their family needs but because they had political

input. They had a political card in their pocket that happened to be different

than the previous person in that job and happened to be the same colour as the

change in government.

[5:00]

I sincerely ask that the minister give that consideration, and when

he sums it up, to give his reasons why he wants it to go to a

parliamentary committee or his reasons why he is not prepared to allow

it to have the proper input that I know British Columbians can give to

it.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, the bill that we see before us,

brought in at a time when people were led to believe there was going to

be a little bit of housekeeping legislation, is anything but

housekeeping. I suppose the only thing it has in common with

housekeeping is its sweeping nature. It is, however, turning back the

clock, and I think we should look at the kind of thing that went on and

led to the formation of a public service commission.

Mr. Speaker, I commend to your reading The Squire of Kootenay West , the biography

of Bert Herridge, a renowned British Columbia politician who served both in

this House and in Ottawa. At one time he was a Liberal, and when the Liberals

were in power he campaigned for Sid Leary, who at one time was the Minister

of Public Works in the riding of Slocan-Kaslo, which now is part of my riding.

Sid Leary, of course — as a bit of an aside — used to own a sawmill. If you've

ever noticed the preponderance of Howe truss bridges made out of wood in and

about my riding, you might be interested to know that the Minister of Public

Works found it rather interesting to build bridges in the Kootenays, because

it derived him a double benefit. Not only did his sawmill become very active

during those periods, but it also was good politics to build bridges across

all the rivers and creeks and so on. So it served him doubly well.

That is the kind of thing that was voted out in 1952. That is the era we're

talking about, an era that I thought we would never return to. In fact, in an

election, I think in the late twenties, in which the Liberals had been swept

out of office, Sid Leary sent out a letter that said: "I can sweep my old

town" — meaning Nakusp — "with a bigger majority than the last time

in spite of what anyone says, and I know I have the Lower Arrow Lakes solid

behind me. So talk and boost Sid Leary, and you'll have my backing to your

good. Furthermore, there will be considerably more patronage shown our own boys

than during my last term."

Mr. Speaker, I don't think anything else so graphically demonstrates

the d