[ Page 5447 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Save the Vancouver Resources Board Act (Bill M 218) Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading –– 5447

Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act (Bill 82) Committee stage

On section 31.

Mrs. Dailly –– 5447

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5447

On section 33.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5447

On the amendment to section 33.

Mr. Cocke –– 5447

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5447

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5451

Mr. King –– 5452

On section 33 as amended.

Mr. Gibson –– 5453

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5454

Mr. Barrett –– 5454.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5454

Mrs. Dailly –– 5455

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5455

Mr. Gibson –– 5455

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5455

Mr. Barrett –– 5456

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5457

Mr. Cocke –– 5457

Mr. Gibson –– 5457

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5457

Mr. Barrett –– 5458

Mr. Wallace –– 5460

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5461

Mr. King –– 5462

Mr. Gibson –– 5463 .

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5463

Mr. Wallace –– 5464

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5465

Mr. Gibson –– 5466

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5466

Mrs. Dailly –– 5466

On section 35.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5467

On section 35 as amended.

On section 36.

On section 37.

On section 40.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5469

On section 41

On section 45.

Mr. Cocke –– 5469

On section 47,

On section 34.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5467

Mr. Cocke –– 5469

On section 50.

Mr. Cocke –– 5469

On section 51.

On the amendment to section 51.

Mr. Cocke –– 5470

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5470

On section 64

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5470

On section 83.

Mrs. Dailly –– 5470

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5471

Mr. Wallace –– 5472

Appendix –– 5473

The House met at 8 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

SAVE THE VANCOUVER RESOURCES

BOARD ACT

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill M 218, Save the Vancouver Resources Board Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 82.

COLLEGES AND PROVINCIAL INSTITUTES ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 82; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

On section 31.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): To the minister: in this section where the definitions are listed, there's a bit of concern about whether the designation of personnel by the minister would take precedence over Labour Relations Board rulings. Would the ones of your designation take precedence over the present Labour Relations Board rulings?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Where there's a conflict between this Act and the Labour Relations Act, this Act will take preference. But I'm not certain that there would be any conflict under section 31.

MRS. DAILLY: Now I know we're moving on to personnel relations, where we can get into this further, but just to lead into it - there's no question in your mind at all, and your legislation is so pointing out to us, that the Labour Code will not apply to the college boards.

HON. MR. McGEER: If they choose to go the trade union route, of course, it will, but those are subsequent sections.

Sections 31 and 32 approved.

On section 33.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I move the first amendment standing under my name, on the order paper, which is to subsection (4) , line"3. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. McGEER: I now move the second amendment to section 33 standing under my name on the order paper. This inserts subsection (8) after subsection (7) Where there is a conflict between this Act and the Labour Code of British Columbia, this Act applies.

On the amendment.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, that is a grave concern as far as we're concerned. The minister has taken upon himself wherever possible the option of opting out educators from the Labour Code. He has done it in another bill we'll be discussing, I think, in the not-too-distant future. Now, at the stroke of a pen, he's done it in section 33 of this Act as a new amendment that has just come forward. He indicates that, as far as he's concerned, where there's any conflict between, the two Acts, this Act applies.

Mr. Chairman, I would go on, however, and suggest that where there's any conflict under any circumstance, the minister applies. It's the minister who makes all the decisions around what's going to happen in the future. Mr. Chairman, that thought is shared by many people now in the college area. They feel that the minister takes precedence over rulings of the LRB - over rulings of anybody. While the minister has certainly shown many, many signs of being anti-labour and anti-organization, I think he should think about what he's doing. He's taking upon himself the responsibility that will ultimately be his demise. To get the kind of co-operation from people who are playing a very important role in education it strikes me that the minister should be co-operating with them as opposed to taking a position where he is all powerful and deifying himself in this way.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like the minister to explain why he's going ahead with this kind of awesome power. Why is he taking upon himself the responsibility that he has?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we're doing quite the contrary to what the member suggests. What this bill does is give those in the educational system the opportunity to pursue a professional route to their personnel relations, as opposed to the trade union route. If they choose the trade union route, they may have all of the provisions and designs of the Labour Relations Act which, I must say, Mr. Chairman, was not developed and designed for educators or educational institutions. Nevertheless, if

[ Page 5448 ]

people who are employed by these institutions feel that the provisions of the Labour Relations Act suit their needs, and whatever changes may be deemed advisable by the Legislature in the future to suit the needs of the trade union movement - and, after all, that's what the Labour Relations Act is all about -then they're free to choose that route. We won't impede that decision in any way. We won't interfere with the way they manage their affairs under the Labour Relations Act. But if they choose, instead, a route of professional development designed for educational institutions, free from the demands that the Labour Code may have to suit the railroaders or the construction industry or the teamsters or whatever group will require amendments to the Code to suit that trade union movement, then that's the way their lives will be organized. We won't interfere with that, but if they're to take a professional route then they should be free to have that professional option. It's their choice. We certainly have found the universities, with the exception of Notre Dame, have chosen the professional route.

Just today I met with the B.C. Teachers' Federation and asked them if they wished to be under the Labour Relations Act. They said no. They want their own professional route. I said the government would respect that decision. We made it clear to the universities that we respect the decision they've made. Now we offer it to the colleges, who until this time have not had the opportunity, really, to develop a professional model to make their choice. Now I can well understand the bias of the New Democratic Party which has achieved what power it enjoys because of the support of the trade union movement. I can well understand the position of the New Democratic Party that the Labour Relations Act is their Bible. I can understand their option that only the Labour Relations Act is satisfactory for any group, that confrontation must be nourished at any cost and that educational institutions should mould themselves to the needs and requirements of the teamsters and the construction trade unions and so forth. But that may not be a wish of the educators.

We in the ministry certainly have very strong indications from the professionals in the education movement, be it the teachers, be it the university professors or be it those in the college system. Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it. Many of those in the college system have expressed a strong desire not to have their professional lives moulded by the needs of the trade union movement.

Notwithstanding that, if they make their choice democratically and in the full knowledge that professional options do exist for them, the ministry is prepared to develop those. Then, of course, they're free to take that trade union route. The bill offers them these options, and I commend the members of the New Democratic Party particularly to support these sections. Mr. Chairman, if in the face of these options those in the college system choose the trade union movement as the route to go, then of course they will have the vindication that they seek. They will have obtained that not by limiting the options and by offering to people only one opportunity for their future but by choosing this in the face of the other options that we think properly should be offered to those who seek professional routes of development. That's the choice that the personnel section of this bill offers. It's fair, very generous, very reasonable.

AN HON. MEMBER: Very dictatorial.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, you see, Mr. Chairman, when options are given, that member for Vancouver Centre is terrified that the truth will come out. He doesn't want the options to be offered, and so only a dictator would offer genuine options. Only a dictator would give people a choice that might go differently from that member's prejudices.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, may I remind you that we are speaking to the amendment.

HON. MR. McGEER: The reason why this amendment needs to be included in this particular Section 1s the advice the ministry has received. Should questions be asked on a college campus about these professional options, and these were to be explained, then it would be possible for people to bring unfair labour practice charges against the staff of the Ministry of Education who would go about explaining an Act passed by the Legislature. Yes, indeed. The Deputy Minister of Education has been cited by the Labour Relations Board, Mr. Chairman, for an Act that we in this House introduced. An interference with free speech. Imagine, to cite the Deputy Minister of Education for unfair labour practices because a bill was introduced by a freely elected member of this House. I want to tell you, we've got to be careful about the legislation we pass in this House lest some board appointed by this Legislature tries to tell us what our business is.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister needn't be insulting; the minister needn't try to pull his chestnuts out of the fire by talking in terms of our likes and our dislikes and so on and so forth.

Mr. Chairman, what the minister said, in effect, is this: he's going to take away the right from the universities. We already know that in another bill. He's going to provide the alternative here, but he's going to mitigate that alternative as best he can, as he showed with his most recent amendment. He wants to encourage the faculty of colleges now to stay away from the Labour Relations Act.

[ Page 5449 ]

Now, Mr. Chairman, is there anything as direct as the minister's intentions? Is there anything as obvious as the minister's intentions? Mr. Chairman, I suggest this: that's the minister who lives by confrontation; that's the government that lives by confrontation. That's what they hope for. That's why you are having trouble with your public servants right now. They tried so desperately last year to have a nurses' strike. They tried their very best. The minister wants to have that kind of confrontation and the minister is building it in right here in the colleges Act, I think the personnel section doesn't sniff very well, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to have this opportunity to applaud the minister and agree with his doublespeak and doublethink. Now what it really means is not what the minister has said because afterwards, when he's faced with a situation, he will alter it by calling them either dumbbells, or "He was always in favour of this action, but they were too dumb to understand it."

Now why do I mean this, Mr. Chairman? We've got to understand that this is the cleverest politician ever elected in British Columbia. He is' so clever, he is now saying that what he said in an election campaign is not necessarily true after an election. As a matter of fact, he said, and I quote his words: "The insurance companies were goddamn dumbbells." That's what he said; I only quote the minister. That's what he said in the paper, and he ha~n't denied it. He said the insurance companies were goddamn dumbbells.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're dealing with an amendment.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. Now that is the minister's attitude. He said that the insurance companies were g.d. dumbbells because they thought that when he said something, he meant it. So what he's said here tonight is: "Don't worry, gang. What I say tonight I don't really mean because it can be interpreted the other way. Whatever it matters, it doesn't care anyway because I'm elected and I can say any g.d. thing I want to."

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: What has he said on this section?

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): He's a Groucho-Marxist.

MR. BARRETT: He is the Orwellian interpreter for all of North America. This is what he said on this section, and I want the minister to correct me if I am wrong, or swear at me. After all, I think that I should be sworn at at the same level as the insurance companies should be. Interestingly -, , enough, how would you like to be an insurance executive down there in Toronto, pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into ads attacking the socialist who swears at you after they have spent your money to get elected? Pretty good, Pat, good stuff! From a technical sense you are really the secret pinko over there! Yes! No, not a Marxist, a double Marxist. A double Marxist is commonly known in the vernacular as doublecross, and the insurance company figured out that he is a double-Marxist.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, back to the section, please.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for stopping those interruptions. This is what this section says. I want you all to understand it.

The minister has announced tonight that the college faculties will have a choice. And notice the new one - if you want to be like teamsters, or if you want to be like carpenters or any other low-lifes, you can take that choice. That's the inference. The inference is that somehow if you are a trade unionist, or you are a journeyman, or you belong to a union, there is a separate law for you because you are lower class.

If you choose the lower class way - that's what he's saying, 16t's examine it - if you choose the lower class way you have the freedom to choose the lower class way. That's what he said. Is that right? That's correct. However, under this Section 1f you choose the lower class way and you certify yourself, you will not have that class's protection of the Labour Code. That's right now, Mr. Minister. You almost got it by everybody in the House except me. You would have got it by me except I made the fatal mistake of listening to you, and that can be fatal - ask the insurance companies. Don't be so g.d. dumb. Listen to the minister.

That's what the minister said: "If you choose this way, which is lower class, and you have any problems, what applies to those lower classes does not apply to you. You are free to choose this method of being hung, guillotined, or shot, but it's your choice."

HON. MR. McGEER: Hanged.

MR. BARRETT: Hunged. I was hoping that you would correct it. It shows that you are paying attention. "Do you want to be hanged, do you want to be shot, or do you want to be guillotined? Just choose this way, because any protection of law that's afforded to any citizen who chooses this way is not afforded to your university faculty who choose this

[ Page 5450 ]

way., ,

Why, Mr. Minister? Why, if they make a choice in a free society that you are the one to stand... ? Don't turn your back to me. That is a bad example of classroom behaviour. How in the world can we establish the core curricula if you show that intemperate behaviour in class?

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): He's rude and arrogant.

MR. BARRETT: I think he's going to get a bad report card from me. Mr. Chairman, I hate to remind you of this, but he picked up that bad habit from W.A.C.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I hate to remind you that you're not on the amendment, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: No, I'm on the minister. I'm trying to get on his back.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): You're also not in class.

MR. BARRETT: You're also not in your seat. The least you could do when you're out of your seat is lay prone.

Mr. Chairman, what the minister has said in this Act is his typical doubletalk, gobbledegook and nonsense. There's one thing about this minister - he's right up-front. He doesn't give a you-know-what-he-said to the insurance companies. He doesn't care. He is saying that the professors of the faculty of any college can join the union if they want, but if they join the union, don't expect the law to apply to them. He is separating a group in a free society by saying that if you choose this way, the laws that apply to everyone in a free society who have chosen this way will not apply to you. I say that that smacks of Fascism. Yes, it does. Who gave you the authority to tell people, once they make a choice, that the laws that regulate that choice don't apply to them? Who do you think you are?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Patrick Lucey.

MR. BARRETT: It's a charade. Who in the world do you think you are, stomping right over the head of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , determining that if a certain group chooses the labour union organization the Labour Code will not apply to them? Where do you get the gall, the nerve, to make that choice for people? All this claptrap about democracy. You know, it's unbelievable. This guy, I hope, gives more interviews to The Victorian because we'll get a real interpretation of what he's really saying here. Are they "goddamn dumb"' too? That's quote, unquote, Mr. Chairman. I'm only quoting the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. It's not permissible in the House, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: It's not permissible to quote the minister? I withdraw my quote of the minister. I will not refer to the g.d. insurance companies in the paper, that he said ... and if anybody quotes the minister again, remember that he's the guy who's come to this House to say to the college faculties: "You can have the right to join a trade union, but all the laws that deal with trade unions will not apply to you if it's in conflict with this Act."

Now shame on you, Mr. Minister. Who do you really think you are? It's gone to your head. I didn't think it would happen to you. You were the last one of that whole bunch, I thought, that ego extension would overwhelm. You are the most modest, timid, unambitious one of that whole bunch. You're the only one of the three who jumped parties because of principle, or the lack of it. I truly believed that, my friends, until I read that article and what he said about insurance companies. He's been masquerading all this time as a closet Red.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, back to the amendment, please. For the third time....

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, he's a dictator.

MR. LAUK: Armchair Commie!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, one thing I appreciate about the minister is that while he's giving the message to the backbenchers, he turns here and winks, because he knows we're smart enough to figure out the game, but he's got that bunch back there conned.

Did you see the way he did it, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must inform you that you are not on the amendment. I'm asking you one more time to return to the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm on the amendment. The minister said ... he just said it a few minutes ago. Do you want recess and get the Blues? What he said was this: "They are free to choose to associate in a lower-class form, i.e. the trade union movement. However, if they make that choice to go to that lower-class form, i.e. the trade union movement, there is no way that the laws that apply to the lower-class form, i.e. the trade union movement, will apply to this group. And that's what this Section 1s all about. Now that's only half-democracy. That's what it is.

[ Page 5451 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, look. If I have to make a choice of what I look at.... You know, one thing about it: this minister has at least retained a sense of humour. I mean, he knows he's pompous and he enjoys it. Actually, the other Liberals take themselves seriously; he knows that he was born to rule.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, not George IV - George 111. Do you know what happened to George 111, just about the turn of the century? I'm on this section, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's most interesting. I hope you soon relate to it.

AN HON. MEMBER: George III wrote this section.

MR. BARRETT: George III would go for this kind of legislation. He would.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No. Do you remember what happened to George just before he flipped his wig? George III flipped right out.

MR. LAUK: Did he die of gout?

MR. BARRETT: No. There's George III right down there.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Look, Mr. Minister, don't con the troops. Don't tell us you are giving freedom of choice, but if you choose one way then there are laws that apply to that choice that are not available to these people. That's the truth. So don't con the troops. Just get up and say that you view any action in a free society by professionals towards trade union activity as being lower class. They're free to go that way under this bill, but if they go that way they're not going to get the protection of the law. That's really what it is. Don't kid the troops.

What you really reveal to us is something that some of us already knew. You're an elitist. You really are an elitist. I don't blame you for that, Your whole life has been one on welfare. You've worked for public institutions all your life.

MR. LAUK: Never had a job in his life.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. That's what happens when they're stored away in a university and they look at those brains in a jar. They begin to make some identities.

AN HON. MEMBER: On the public dole.

MR. BARRETT: On the public dole, that's right. Every stamp, fund-raising thing for....

MR. LEA: He's never made a free-enterprise buck in his life.

MR. BARRETT: No, he's never made a free-enterprise buck in his life. He's an elitist who believes that university faculty should do as he tells them to do. You should see what he thinks about free-enterprise businessmen. He says they're g.d. dumb.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I would love to see what The Financial Post is going to do with that interview. I think they're going to ignore it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's going to frame it.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Minister, tell us why the Labour Code doesn't apply? Why?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition was at his entertaining best this evening, and that's always enjoyable. I like the member best that way.

MR. BARRETT: Is he saying something?

HON. MR. McGEER: The member, Mr. Chairman, is showing off his Toni over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Compliments are not in accordance with the amendment.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, I don't want to try and turn the evening into a comedy hour, Mr. Chairman, as the member would like to do. I think the part that bothers him most about this bill, Mr. Chairman, is that it's riddled with democracy. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: They're desperately afraid, Mr. Chairman, that somebody, given a choice other than the trade union movement, might select that choice. It's not a question of better or worse; it's a question of something which is tailored for one circumstance versus something which is tailored for another. But the NDP have never had that division.

[ Page 5452 ]

They've got their own particular point of view. They're socialists; they're trade unionists.

MR. BARRETT: You're a socialist too!

HON. MR. McGEER: They can't think or operate in any other sphere. Mr. Chairman, it's too bad that they're so resentful of the fact that others might like to operate in another sphere and make their choice voluntarily.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Labour Relations Act will apply to all those institutions that choose to have the Labour Relations Act apply to them. They make that choice. That's clearly spelled out in the Legislation. But of course, you see, Mr. Chairman, under the NDP it would be unthinkable that any other choice would be available to an emerging educational institution.

Of course, it's different with respect to the teachers who were there before the NDP came to power. It was different for the universities established before the NDP came to power. But of course, when it came to colleges which began to emerge while the NDP was in power, then the choices that were accepted by the teachers on the one hand or the university professors on the other wouldn't be offered to the colleges, because they emerged during the NDP time of power when their prejudices with respect to the Labour Relations Act held force in government.

Now if people want to continue in the model established for them by the NDP, this Act gives them full opportunity to do that. It gives them the full scope of the Labour Relations Act. It does apply to them. If they choose, however, to go routes that have been established by their more-senior-[illegible] professional colleges than the schools on the one hand and the universities on the other, then they'll have that option. That's all that this says, Mr. Chairman.

While I can understand the uneasiness that the NDP would experience at the opportunity being given to the colleges, I nevertheless cannot sympathize with it.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Chairman, now that we've had our instructions on basic democracy and we find a bill before us that is objectionable because it's riddled with democracy, I want to read the applicable sections of the Labour Code which this minister is protecting the professionals in the colleges and the vocational institutes from.

First of all, there's this very undemocratic section 7 that the professionals in the colleges and institutes must be protected from. It says this, Mr. Chairman:

"A trade union or council of trade unions shall not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in the representation of any of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit, whether or not they are members of the trade union or any constituent union of the council of trade unions, as the case may be."

Interjection.

MR. KING: An employers organization is similarly prohibited from discriminatory or arbitrary conduct. Conviction before the Labour Relations Board of such a charge is an unfair labour practice and is applied against the trade union or an employer. Now that's part of the democratic process that the minister is apparently bent on protecting the college instructors from.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. KING: Then there is section 34, -Mr. Chairman. This lays out the jurisdiction of the Labour Relations Board to decide certain questions. It provides:

"That the board has exclusive jurisdiction to decide any question arising under this Act upon application by any person, or its own motion. It may decide for the purposes of this Act, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any question as to whether. . . ."

It then lists a variety of things, but section (u): "It may decide whether a person is a professional."

MR. BARRETT: Well, he's decided that.

MR. KING: Section 47, Mr. Chairman, provides that:

" Where a trade union applies for certification as a bargaining agent for a union consisting of (a) employees who supervise or other employees, and (b) any of the other employees, the board may certify the trade union for the unit or for a unit consisting only of employees who supervise, or for a unit composed of some or all of the other employees."

The specific purpose of those sections, Mr. Chairman, is to provide that where a unit of professional employees is designated, they have full and free option to determine what the structure of their own bargaining agent will be. It may be a traditional trade union, or it may be a new organization which they themselves design and seek certification for as the appropriate vehicle to represent them.

MR. BARRETT: That's too much freedom for them.

MR. KING: That's apparently too much freedom

[ Page 5453 ]

and this minister has to insulate these poor professionals from that kind of democracy.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. They make up their own minds.

MR. KING: Incredible! The minister proposes to give them the Hobson's choice of going into the Labour Code. There is no more Labour Relations Act in this province.

I suppose that indicates that the minister never read the Labour Code of British Columbia which he presumes to render inapplicable to certain segments of the academic community. I guess he's never read it because he doesn't even know the name of it. The sorry thing, and the thing he neglects to tell the House, is that when he gives them that Hobson's choice it doesn't only apply to the particular bargaining agent. He removes as well a whole variety of other protections which professional employees or anyone else may reasonably expect to receive under the labour laws of this province. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) says, he renders certain employees second-class citizens. The law of the land is good enough for the industrial workers but it's not going to be afforded to professionals in the colleges.

MR. BARRETT: They might use it.

MR. KING: The whole first section of the Labour Code of British Columbia applies to unfair labour practices by management. What of those unfair labour practices and course of methods that may be taken by certain college managements or individuals who would seek to get rid of employees who tried to set up any kind of organization and bargaining agent? The history of labour relations in this province is riddled with that kind of activity. No question about it. Now the minister is ensuring that the protection of the Labour Code will not be available to prohibit that kind of conduct by employers in this province. He's inviting conflict. He's segregating society. Yes, indeed, I can tell the minister, when the NDP government was in office and professionals came into my office as Minister of Labour seeking the right to bargain collectively, I said to them: "Look, you have to have it one way or the other. Design your own bargaining agent, but you can't be a little bit professional and enjoy the status of professionalism, and at one and the same time enjoy the status of trade unionism without living up to the same laws that apply to the rest of the industrial workers in the province."

What the minister is doing here is segregation on an elitist basis on the one hand, while denying the rights of protection that all workers in the province should enjoy on the other. It's sheer madness! I can't understand why the Minister of Labour and the

Minister of Education don't talk to each other. Perhaps they indulged in too much private conversation a couple of years ago, and they are ashamed to talk to each other any more, and enter into dialogue. It's incredible that the Minister of Education is introducing in a new statute in this House, a completely new set of labour laws to apply to a certain select few in the province. What we're seeing in this province is a variety of new labour frameworks set up to suit the government's purposes in each new statute.

I suggest this is going to bring about complete chaos in terms of any reasonable and rational framework of labour law in the province. The minister shouldn't try to delude himself and certainly he shouldn't try to confuse this House as to what the consequences of this particular section will do.

I want to say again, Mr. Chairman, that it's not just this one section or just his one bill. The whole pattern of that minister's conduct is to separate working people, whether they be professional or industrial workers, and to dictate in an authoritarian way precisely what the model of their bargaining agent would be.

Mr. Chairman, if the minister had any respect for the rights of working people, whether they are professional or otherwise, he would have enough confidence in them to recognize their own intelligence and their own ability to design their own bargaining agency. It's an absolutely arrogant piece of legislation and it is an absolutely arrogant performance by the Minister of Education.

Amendment approved.

On section 33 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister. That is, whether or not those employees who choose the Labour Code model will be circumscribed in their bargaining with the institution. I have in mind here the restrictions that are placed on those who would bargain under the so-called Division (3) model, whereby agreements that contain provisions for matters other than the settling of benefits or the institution or the settling of grievances have no force, in effect.

I have been looking as to whether or not the same sort of restriction applies to those who bargain under the Labour Code. I wonder if the minister could tell me if those who choose to bargain under the Labour Code are free to bargain with respect to the questions that are outlined in Division (2) and, in particular, the need for the participation of the employees "in the management of the institution and evaluation of and by their professional colleagues and so on." Is this open to those who choose to bargain under the Labour Code, Mr. Minister?

[ Page 5454 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, under the Labour Code, the employees would not be operating under this Act at all, but under the Labour Code. Therefore those things that apply to other sections of the bill, i.e. those matters in Division (2) , would certainly not apply to individuals under the Labour Code.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I understand the minister's answer. In the Public Schools Act, for example, as the minister is aware, teachers are stopped from bargaining learning conditions and working conditions, in theory. In fact , some contracts do contain learning conditions agreements but their legality is questionable because the Act doesn't authorize this.

What I want to know is: will those who bargain under the Labour Code have the right to deal with their college, or whatever the institution may be, on the subject matter of such things as professional questions - the management of the institution, the evaluation of professional qualifications and other things mentioned in section 36, opportunities for professional advancement and benefits available in the institution'and in the professional community? In other words, will the fact that a particular group elects to operate under the Labour Code make them inferior citizens insofar as the ability to express and advance their professional aspiration and standing and general desire for the upgrading and betterment of their institution?

HON. MR. McGEER: Those who choose the Labour Relations Act as the vehicle under which they operate would operate under the Labour Relations Act. They would be subject to all of the privileges and all of the restrictions of the Labour Relations Act. The answer to the member is: seek those opportunities and those limitations of the Labour Relations Act as a guide to your question. There would be nothing in that particular section you referred to that would limit people under the Labour Relations Act at all. That is their choice, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: I would like to believe the minister, but why the amendment saying that the Labour Code is not applicable beyond this Act, that this Act is superior to the Labour Code? If there's any conflict under this Act, the Labour Code doesn't apply. When you answer the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , you leave the gentle, soft, reasonable impression that the Labour Code applies in all its aspects. If that's true, then why do you have this simple line in here that's causing us all - those of us who aren't as well educated as we should be - the difficulty in understanding? Now if you remove this, then I'm prepared to believe you.

HON. MR. McGEER: I've already explained to the member, Mr. Chairman, that it was made clear to us.... Indeed, some of the radical faculty members at some of the colleges were already making statements that if we were to explain the professional options on the college campuses, we would be accused of unfair labour practices. (Laughter.) Now there's not much point in having a bill which you're prevented from explaining on college campuses, is there, despite the hyena laughs from the members opposite? I think that was good advice, and we accepted it.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the lecture, especially since there's no charge. But I didn't come here for a lecture. I came here for a straight answer. You answer the member for North Vancouver-Capilano by saying to him that if they choose in a democratic society to go this way, the Labour Code is applicable. But then, sir, if I may quietly get your attention for a moment, and address yourself to your own words in your amendment, sir, the amendment says: "Section 8. Where there is conflict between this Act and the Labour Code of British Columbia, this Act applies." Why is that in there, sir? Could you tell me why that is in there?

Now you see, Mr. Minister, that's why we don't believe you. When it comes down to the final question that the gentleman from North Vancouver asked - and I'm only following up on his question -if indeed your statement is correct that the Labour Code applies fully to these people, then why is this amendment in? Would you answer that, please? If the Labour Code applies, then if there's any conflict let the Labour Code determine the answer of the conflict. There are provisions in the Labour Code to do just exactly that, as my colleague for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) pointed out.

Some less trusting people - certainly not myself -would believe that the minister is leaving a Catch-22 related to the choice. I humbly submit to the minister who has more superior knowledge than those of us who represent a lowly working-class group, if I could put my cloth cap in hand and say to the minister: "Please, sir, as humble workers, could you tell us why these humble workers will not have the right of the full protection of the Labour Code that you're trying to leave the impression that they have?" Now can you just answer that simple question? Why is this Section 1n there? If these people choose freely to go the Labour Code route, why don't they have the full benefits of the Labour Code?

You see, after all this time, we get to the crux of the matter. The crux of the matter is this: the minister does not want college faculties to exercise the freedom of choice. And to make sure they don't exercise the freedom of choice, they're being given the right to form themselves into unions. However, if

[ Page 5455 ]

they do that, they are not to be protected by the legislation that protects the formation of unions. You see the convoluted thinking? Have I confused you, Mr. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano?

MR. WALLACE: Trying to get the best of both worlds.

MR. BARRETT: ... and give them nothing. You can have the freedom of choice; but if you don't pick what I want you to pick, you're not going to get anything. That's what he's really saying. And that's not very nice. As a matter of fact, it's arrogant, it's dictatorial, and I humbly submit, since I don't have a zillion university degrees, unlike the Chairman and the minister, that it's not fair. Now if I could have gone to university as long as the minister had, I'd maybe understand. Maybe it's a game of chance. But I've been around a long time, and I don't trust the minister. He's playing tiddly-winks with this House with this kind of amendment.

You're stripping people of their freedoms, not giving them. This Act isn't riddled with democracy; it's riddled with hypocrisy. And you're not fooling anybody, Mr. Minister, not even me. And I humbly submit that I can be easily fooled, because I don't have all those zillions of academic degrees.

Will you answer the question? If they choose to go the Labour Code route, why aren't they given the full protection of the Labour Code? Will you answer that question? Too simple. And that's really the heart of the issue. You do it my way, or else - that's what the minister is saying.

MRS. DAILLY: Is the minister aware, in view of the fact that a few moments ago he referred to the radical faculty element, that both the association of college faculties and the association of the college boards of this province are joining together in condemning this section of the Act? Now are you implying that both those groups are the so-called radicals?

MR. BARRETT: They're all Commies.

MRS. DAILLY: I think that's a pretty shocking statement to make. The association of college boards and the faculty associations of British Columbia have informed the minister that this is a bad section. It's going to be cumbersome and time consuming. Aside from that, as the former Minister of Labour and the Leader of the Opposition have pointed out, it even smacks of a very unethical move on behalf of the minister to get his way. Now in view of the fact that he's inevitably going to be facing a confrontation scene over this, because it's simply not going to work, and the faculties and the boards are not going to sit down and let this kind of Act be imposed on them, will the minister agree to withhold this section of the Act completely and restore some confidence in the people who are operating in these boards and in these faculties? In fact, it's an insult to them, and they have said this. They have said that this very section shows that you have no confidence in them whatsoever. I ask the minister: will he hold this section? Better still, will he withdraw it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the minister?

HON. MR. McGEER: The answer is no, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a specific, well-defined question, The section as amended states in part that there are areas where there may be conflict with the Labour Code. In that case, this Act will apply.

Now I want to set out a specific set of conditions. I want to set out those conditions that are referred to in section 36 of the bill, and I want to suggest to the minister that under the Labour Code, questions such as this, in an ordinary bargaining relationship, would be negotiable. They would probably largely not be negotiable under the Public Schools Act, but in an ordinary trade union situation under the Labour Code, they would be negotiable. Management might say these things relate to management rights; we're not going to make a deal with you. Nevertheless, they would be negotiable.

My question is: for those faculties that choose to bargain under this section - under the Labour Code model - will they have the right to bargain with respect to those matters that are described for those who choose to bargain under Division (2) methods, as described in section 36? Will they have those rights if they opt for the Labour Code?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, anything under section 36 would not apply to those who were under the Labour Relations Act. Therefore what they could nor could not do would not be determined by anything under these sections, but would be determined by what's in the Labour Relations Act. Therefore it's hard for me to specify without talking about a completely different Act.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: There's nothing in this section which would apply to the Labour Relations Act. There's nothing in this section at all. There would obviously be no conflict between section 36 and the Labour Relations Act.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm aware that if they choose the Division (2) bargaining method, it

[ Page 5456 ]

is a different thing than if they choose the Labour Code. My question is: if they do choose the Labour Code, will the minister allow them to bargain about precisely the same questions that they would be allowed to bargain about if they choose Division (2) type bargaining? Or would their freedom of bargaining - their scope of subject matter to be laid on the bargaining table - be circumscribed because they choose to go the Labour Code route? That's the simple question.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the minister would have no say in it, one way or the other.

AN HON. MEMBER: Of course you would.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, I have no say in it, because there aren't discretionary things with respect to such matters in this bill anywhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: Incredible!

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, it's not incredible at all. You should know your own Act, which is the Labour Relations Act. You know what things are permitted and not permitted under that Act. The powers of the minister are clearly, clearly spelled out in this piece of legislation and the member, Mr. Chairman, is devising strawmen.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister is suggesting we're talking about another Act. I'm talking about this Act, wherein it states in this section as amended that in case of conflict this Act will apply and the Labour Code will not apply. I am asking the minister a question with respect to his Act - the Act that's in front of us now - and with respect to this amended section of this Act. I'm saying to him: will this* Act, or any regulations that the minister may make under this Act - because the discretionary power is very broad - or the use of the minister's power under this Act, be used in any way to circumscribe the bargaining power as to subject matter that may be bargained about that would otherwise be exercisable under the Labour Code?

That's a very clear question. The answer is "yes" or "no." It has nothing to do with another law; it has to do with this law. What are the powers in this law and how does the minister propose to use those powers under this law? Are people who choose to bargain under the Labour Code of British Columbia going to be first-class citizens in terms of what they're allowed to bargain about, or are they going to be second-class citizens? That's the question - yes or no.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I can understand me being insulted, but to insult a former colleague when he....

MR. GIBSON: He did that once already.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, he did that. That wasn't an insult; that was a praise. You got rid of him, man. That's not an insult. What the member has raised is exactly the question that applies to the amendment of this Act. If one dares to go beyond the first amendment to the same section we're dealing with -and I want the Chairman to keep us in order - you will see that there's a definition of what is a "strike" and what is a "lockout." Do you see that? It's right after this. After years of careful work, a Labour Code exists in this province defining what a "strike" is, what a "lockout" is, what conditions around that conflict are. What the minister is doing by this Section 1s inviting chaos.

Let us suppose there is a strike and all the rules and regulations of the Labour Code, which are the form of dealing with this kind of dispute - a strike -are not applicable because of this section. They can bring in scabs; they can lock out; they can selectively lock out. You can have a real donnybrook because the Labour Code doesn't apply. The significant thing about all of this debate is that the man who is supposed to provide order in these kinds of relations, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , hasn't opened his mouth once on the intrusion....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Sick to your stomach?

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): You're misreading the section.

MR. BARRETT: Misreading the section? I'm not making the mistake, Mr. Member. You're the one who makes the mistakes. I'm reading what it says, and I'm following up the questions of the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . If that minister is making you sick to your stomach, stand up and defend your labour rights. Don't get trampled all over by him. You're opening the door to chaos. No? You're the deputy. Kiss him in the ear. You two Liberals, hug each other a little bit so he can get up and speak.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Back to the section as amended.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, just take it easy back there.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You don't even know, Mr. Member. The minister has been asked a simple

[ Page 5457 ]

question by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano. He has laid out the same problems that we have been asking about all night: why do you have this Section 1n when the Labour Code already has a method of dealing with conflict that is fair and equitable? Why do you need this in there? Why?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, for those who choose the Labour Relations Act model, the provisions of the Labour Relations Act will apply. I've explained this many times to the member.

MR. BARRETT: Except when there's conflict.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, I've explained twice to the members, and perhaps once more, Mr. Chairman, that in the initial stages of bringing this Act forward and providing the options this bill provides for, it has to be possible to explain the bill to the various colleges which, under the Labour Relations Act, could be prevented. Therefore the bill takes no effect because you're not allowed to implement it. This is the dilemma that was pointed out and so, Mr. Chairman, I've explained for the third time why it's necessary to have that provision in. It was legal advice, and I think it was good advice. I commend the members to accept the amendment, and they did. Mr. Chairman, we've been through the amendment and it passed. The members could have asked for a division if they wished, but I think what we're doing now is reflecting on a vote.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister wants to have us give a couple of examples, I would gather, of what's wrong here. Let me give you one very good example.

Section 33 (4) specifies a majority of professional staff. This clearly should be altered to include only faculty covered by bargaining units presently existing.

Mr. Chairman, it's totally inappropriate that teaching staff involved peripherally in the institution should vote. You see, Mr. Chairman, this already conflicts with section 45 of the Labour Code right now, and that's why he brings in this amendment.

Don't ever think, Mr. Chairman, that we haven't the right to discuss this section as amended. This is just one example - and I'm sure there are many, many more - when people have time to go through it. But he can gerrymander any kind of vote he wants out of this thing. And, Mr. Chairman, the minister is king. We've already gone through that.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, no, there is only one king. He is the Crown Prince.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the only explanation the minister has given us as to how this Act and the Labour Code might conflict, and this Act then would override, would be with respect to the ability to explain this Act on campuses.

Mr. Chairman, I do not see anywhere in this Act a clause that says the government has the right to explain it on campuses, so I don't see how the fact that this Act would be superior to the Labour Code would solve his problem in that regard. But let's assume for a moment that it would. I don't see how it would, but let's assume it would. I want to ask the minister: will he tell the committee if that's the reason for the insertion of this subsection? Will he guarantee the Legislature that that is the only way that this saving clause will be used, that in no other way will this clause be used to emasculate the Labour Code of British Columbia, with the single exception of the ability to explain this Act on the college campuses of the province?

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please, hon. minister. The amendment has passed. We're discussing the bill as amended, hon. member.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, we're discussing this section as amended, and if I choose to discuss it as amended, that's my business and not yours!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it's in no way the intention of the ministry to emasculate the Labour Relations Act. Not at all. It's the intention of the ministry that, for those who choose it, all the provisions of the Labour Relations Act will be available to them. But it's also the intention of the ministry to have this choice made in the light of other options which were never made available by the NDP and would not have been made ever available to educators by a government that has that orientation.

Now others in the educational system, given choices, have made different choices. I cite the teachers, I cite the university professors, and I see no reason why those in the college system shouldn't be genuinely free to make a professional choice, should that be their desire. What seems to be so dreadful about this legislation, Mr. Chairman, is that those in the college system will be given a genuine option. That seems to be the dreadful thing as far as the NDP is concerned.

So all of these misinterpretations of the Act are offered for the benefit of the public and the press. It doesn't alter the situation at all. I take it that this bill will pass and this terrible thing will happen: the educators in the college system will have a choice. What a terrible thing, Mr. Chairman, to have happen. What a terrible thing, but that's the democratic

[ Page 5458 ]

process. Sometimes these choices, which are so awful for the NDP, get made by people when they're given a free option. It happened in 1975 and it will happen again. Just give them a free choice and let them exercise that free choice.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that the NDP, if they find that these sections are objectionable and they want to persuade the people on college campuses that the single option that was offered during their period in power was the correct one, they'd be quite free to campaign on the college campuses. They wouldn't be hauled before the Labour Relations Board for that. Go ahead. Sell your choice, and if that's the one that the colleges accept, that's the one they'll have, because it's laid out in this Act that genuine democracy will prevail.

But may I just assure the member once more, Mr. Chairman, that it's certainly not the intention of this ministry to limit what can be done under the Labour Relations Act.

MR. GIBSON: The minister's a pro. He's been around the House a long time, and he knows that when you get asked a question you'd rather not answer, you answer another question. I understand that. But he will understand that I'm going to ask my question over again.

The sole justification that he has given for this clause as amended, with respect to the superiority of the Colleges Act over the Labour Code, has been the justification that this will allow him, his agents or others to explain this legislation on campuses. I question that that amendment will particularly do that, but if it does, well and good. I have no objection to that. I'm asking him for this simple guarantee: since that is the sole justification he's given for this section that is concerning so many members, will he guarantee this Legislature that that is the sole way in which it will be used, and it will not be used in any other way to stifle the operation of the Labour Code, thereby rendering the Labour Code model a second class choice for people to be able to take? I'm asking him to guarantee a genuine choice, in other words. Will he do that? Will he just answer that question -yes, that's the only way it will be used?

HON. MR. McGEER: I've explained to the House several times and I've explained to the member what the policy of the government is with respect to these matters. The member has been around in politics as long as I have, and he's seen Houses operate that I've never been in. He's even spent time in the, Prime Minister of Canada's office, so he understands the legislative process and how Acts are interpreted. He understands that the people who pass Acts are not the ones who interpret them. One can give indication of policy and what the intention of the ministry would be, but the matter of how an Act is treated doesn't depend on what a minister may or may not say. Ultimately, it depends how lawyers interpret them and how courts interpret them. I have no idea what inventions the legal mind out there somewhere may come up with. Nor would we, if we were to speculate into the hereafter in this House, be able to anticipate them all. So I can't give the member guarantees as to what a legal mind may see and propose.

I can give the member the benefit of the discussions that we had for legal people at the time we were drafting this Act and then making amendments to it. This is precisely what I've done for the member. But beyond that I can't go, except to state what ministry policy is. How foolish it would be for a minister to try and stand up and give guarantees about what a lawyer somewhere might suggest is a worthy interpretation of a section to take to court.

Does he suggest that the lawyers or a judge would study Hansard and thereby base the judgment upon a question asked b y a member f rom Vancouver-Capilano and an answer given by the minister? Of course not. And the member understands that. But I can give the House an indication of the reasoning behind that particular section, which I have done. I can give the House a statement with regard to the policy of the ministry, which I have done. But anything beyond that would be silly - and the member knows it.

MR. GIBSON: Just very briefly - I appreciate that the minister can't bind the courts, but he can bind the government. I just want him to say to this House that it's his policy and his government's policy that if this Section 1s used to interfere with the Labour Code in any other way than that which he has specified in this debate, he will take appropriate measures, be they administrative or legislative, to remedy that situation. Will he give that simple guarantee? He can do that.

MR. BARRETT: Did the minister wish to reply?

HON. MR. McGEER: I've already given a reply; I can't keep doing it.

MR. BARRETT: You haven't given a reply.

Mr. Chairman, we all- appreciate that lawyers might interpret it some way in the court, as the member for North Vancouver-Capilano says. But what is the intention of the minister? What does the minister hope that it will be interpreted as? Does the minister hope that it will only be interpreted as a method of explaining this legislation to the faculty? Is that his earnest hope and prayer to the courts - if there's any question in the courts?

You know what, Mr. Minister? You're being political. You're not being straight with this House. I

[ Page 5459 ]

think it's really amusing that on this very same evening, when we hear his statements about democracy and freedom of choice, he's going to bring in a bill that denies that same freedom of choice, that he's touting in here, to the universities.

What's his speech going to be an hour from now? What's his speech going to be an hour from now when he brings in a bill that excludes the freedom of choice that he's now touting as exists in this bill? What a fraud!

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) going to say?

MR. BARRETT: What's the Minister of Labour going to say? He's going to say nothing! He's only the Minister of Labour and he doesn't count.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that's not relevant to this.

MR. BARRETT: He's not relevant - that's correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to section 33 as amended.

MR. BARRETT: That is true, and I appreciate your comments. Not relevant at all.

Mr. Chairman, we have seen an exercise in flim-flam baloney - that's unparliamentary and I withdraw - flim-flam sausage from the minister.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, there he is. He insulted you; he called you a stuffed shirt. Sam's now involved in the repartee. It's only taken him two years to screw up enough courage to throw an insult across the floor, and he made sure Bill was out of town before he did it. (Laughter.) You hold your spontaneous retort.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now back to the section as amended.

MR. BARRETT: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. Atta boy, Sam. Give 'em a bite!

The minister has been asked some specific questions tonight and he chooses to avoid these questions. What the minister does is leave himself wide open to the charge that this amendment is designed to ensure that if the faculty members choose freely to go through the trade union route of having themselves represented, then the laws protecting people who choose that route will not be applicable to them. That is the Catch-22. I hope that all the college professors who have heard this lovely speech tonight about the freedom of choice understand that this means that if you go the route the minister doesn't like, then you will not be protected by the law that that choice affords everyone else. That's really what he has said, Mr. Member. He has refused to answer any charges to the contrary.

I admit that I have not been as gracious or as erudite as the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . It may be said on occasion that I have been a little bit insulting. My reason for that approach is that I didn't believe the minister from square one anyway. The member for North Vancouver at the beginning of this debate gave him the benefit of the doubt. What's happened is that he has lost the benefit of the doubt, and he has lost any shred of support from the member for North Vancouver-Capilano. He's confirmed my belief that he is full of political hypocrisy in his argument. That's all that has happened in an hour and a half, and the Chairman agrees. While all this has gone on the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , who has had the slats kicked out of him for the last five days, hasn't uttered any words except a couple of burps, and said he has a stomachache over this whole thing.

What a comedy!

AN HON. MEMBER: Give him a Bromo.

MR. BARRETT: What a comedy! This is the group that campaigned to bring freedom to Canada right here through the government in British Columbia - the freedom fighters. It was all a joke. What he has said to the insurance companies applies to everybody else who gets in his way. He swore....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, back to section 33 as amended.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Education, the example for all children in this province, swore in a newspaper column at the insurance companies and revealed that he was a secret pinko. That's right. That's what he said. Tonight when he was asked a question by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano he said: "Don't ask me that question; I only signed my name to this section. The courts will determine, and whatever the courts do we won't interfere with." Is that what he said?

Tell that to the mining companies. We just passed legislation that he was part of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are reflecting upon another vote and that is clearly out of order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if I am reflecting on another vote I will withdraw, but I will reflect on another argument to make my point in this section.

[ Page 5460 ]

In arguing on another bill that shall go unnamed, the minister said that if the court decides this way we will wipe out the court decision by four year retroactive legislation. I'm not talking about the bill; I am talking about his argument on the bill. He comes in here tonight and says that what the court determines, we won't interfere with. That's nonsense. Do you think that the Legislature is a 24-hour separate experience each 24 hours? There has to be some logic. There has to be some reason. What you say one day doesn't mean anything the next day? When we get the next bill it won't even be operative - if I may use that Nixonesque word - one hour from now? You have freedom under this bill, but under the next bill you don't have the same kind of freedom. Mr. Minister, you are exercising power. That is your prerogative as a minister, but don't diddle with the truth and don't diddle with logic.

What you are doing in this bill is killing the NDU union and making sure that if anyone ever dares choose the trade union route to represent themselves at the college level, they will not have the protection of the law that is afforded to people in a free society who make that free choice. That's hypocritical, Mr. Minister, and it certainly follows the interview that you gave to the newspaper. I'm waiting with bated breath to hear your argument shortly to come as to why a university faculty shouldn't have the freedom that you so graciously endowed to these people under this bill. I hope it happens tonight because I would like to see the two arguments capsuled in one evening. I would like to see our own British Columbia whirling dervish do the twist and give us his reasons tonight while the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) sits silent and sees the area that he's supposed to protect just trampled over with dam -that's "dam, " not the other kind that he uses -nonsense.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully for quite a while to this debate. Apart from the specifics that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) quoted, could I just ask one simple question that the section as amended deals with and that is the possibility of conflict between the Labour Code and the provisions of this bill.

In one of his answers, and I listened very carefully, the minister said in section 33: "We're dealing with those employees, those professional staff who choose to go the trade union route." If they choose to go that route, the little thing that puzzles me is: how could there be any conflict between the provisions of the Labour Code for those who choose to go that route and the provisions of this Act?

If I've missed something, it might be that this amendment should attach to section 36 or 35, where they go the other route. Where the provisions for the other route might provide some conflict, I could see why it would be important to clarify under these other sections that the employees had chosen to go the non-trade-union route.

Again, I would never put myself forward as any kind of expert on trade unionism, but I've listened very carefully to the debate and this very amendment to this section seems to contradict the whole purpose of this section. This Section 1s the part that gives the option to the employees to become unionized, but if they become unionized there is this little bit at the end of the section where it says: should there be a conflict between the Labour Code and this Act, then this Act will apply. Now there is a complete and total contradiction in this whole situation.

If, through the general thrust.... I won't read all the subsections and make it painfully clear that within 60 days there is a certification vote, and where the Labour Relations Board is satisfied that a majority have voted ... et cetera. Now I just can't understand why, having gone through all the formalities of the usual standard procedure to become unionized, there has to be this little hooker at the end which says: however, if there is any conflict between that and this Act, then this Act applies. Now that just seems to me to totally contradict the purpose of the other nine-tenths, or seven-eighths of the section, or whatever it is.

Secondly, even if there is to be a conflict - and I can't understand why there would be because either you have the Labour Code applying or you don't - I just can't understand how you can try and ran both ways in this same section. As I said earlier, with these later sections that we'll debate I can understand how employees might wish to discuss something in the course of arbitration, for example, which is one of the options, and be told, "well, of course, some of the options of the Labour Code dealing with arbitration will not apply to these other methods of dealing with conditions of employment, " but this Section 1s so crystal clear that it is, in fact, giving the option to the employees to go the trade union route.

Now what kind of conflict does the minister envisage? He has told us numerous times, Mr. Chairman, about the endless hours that have been spent in consultation with all kinds of people - the colleges, the BCIT, and others. I presume he has discussed this - and this might be quite a presumption - with officials of the Ministry of Labour.

MR. BARRETT: Oh., no. That's going too far.

MR. WALLACE: I assume that since there is a very large part of this total bill dedicated to personnel relations, he would have had discussions with the Ministry of Labour. On that assumption, I would conclude that somebody in the Ministry of Labour said to him: "Well, now look here, Pat, I know you

[ Page 5461 ]

don't know much about this so we had better make sure we cover the issue where there might be a conflict between this Act and the Labour Code."

Now if I'm assuming too much, the minister can interject and I'll sit down, but assuming that I'm still putting two and two together and making four, what were these potential conflicts that required this amendment after the bill had been tabled? Either there are no conflicts and the minister simply wants to have the ace up his sleeve to dictate somewhere down the road in regard to situations where he doesn't favour the organized union voice among the professional staff, or there is some kind of conflict which he foresees that he wants to be able to solve unilaterally, by his own ministerial decision. Now it's one or the other. Frankly I don't see the first one as being a possibility.

The whole of this section - and Lord knows I have done enough reading lately in relation to that previous bill we debated to know what procedure you go through to get certified, and the percentages that are needed, and the protocol, and all the rest of it -spells it all out. Than, right at the end, we've amended it to say: however, if there is some kind of conflict - and one should really put in brackets, "as yet undefined by the minister" - this bill will prevail and not the Labour Code.

I mentioned earlier on this afternoon the massive amounts of material I have received in the mail. I have a memorandum from the meeting of the B.C. Association of Colleges and the Council of B.C. College Principals. It's dated September 2, and I'm sure the minister is well aware of that. In paragraph 4, under personnel relations, they go into this question of being a bit puzzled by the minister's statement that if, of course, there is any kind of misunderstanding, then this Act will apply rather than the Labour Code.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I think all three parties on this side of the House have outlined in the plainest, simplest language the fact that this section contradicts itself.

MR. COCKE: It also contradicts the Code directly.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Member for New Westminster, I am quite willing to repeat the fact that I don't have half the understanding of the Labour Code that you have, but I'm just a person who tries to work from first principles. I read what it says.

The first seven-eighths of the section says that they should have the option. The minister himself gave me a very high-handed answer the other day when I asked him why under this bill employees would have to go through the whole business of applying for certification when 13 out of 14 have already done so. The smug answer I got from that minister was: "Oh, Mr. Member, we're giving these people options which they never had before." That's actually, literally true. You are giving them options because they don't have to go the trade union route. If they don't go the trade union route, they've got two choices in the other route. That's fair enough, and I'm in support of that.

But how can you explain section 33 where they go through all the established procedures of asking~ for certification and then you get this little hooker at the end which says: "However, if you go the trade union route and there's some conflict, this bill prevails over the Labour Code."? What a ridiculous contradiction. Even I can understand that and I'm just a....

MR. BARRETT: And you're just a doctor.

MR. WALLACE: I'm just a quack. I'm glad that last remark wakened the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) . He's been very quiet tonight.

MR. BARRETT: If you're a quack, he's a quack-quack.

MR. WALLACE: But seriously, Mr. Chairman, anybody who just reads plain English would have to come to the conclusion that that last amendment that we've just made to this section completely contradicts the whole thrust of the section. If the minister still maintains that that is not the case, will he then try to tell me what he foresees as conflicts which caused him to consider that this last subsection (8) had to be added?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, the member may not have been in when I was going over this before but I'll be pleased to have another go. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano has got it and the member for New Westminster has got it. I'll try once more to get the point across to all members. It's simply this, Mr. Member.

Section 7 of the Labour Relations Act would prevent any of these sections being introduced or implemented or discussed on the campuses, despite the fact that we would pass this bill and despite the fact that in law an Act which comes subsequent to another Act generally has precedence if there's conflict. Nevertheless, people could charge anybody who tried to get a vote under section 33, or tried to implement or even explain what section 37 or 38 was all about prior to any vote being taken. They would be prevented from doing so, according to legal advice, by section 7 of the Labour Relations Act. The member for New Westminster understands that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: With respect, Mr. Member, this is the problem and this is why. We had not

[ Page 5462 ]

considered this a necessary element at all in the first draft. But it was explained to us and, once more, Mr. Chairman, we accepted legal advice. Because of that section of the Labour Relations Act there would be some question as to whether you could even have a democratic vote. That's what the problem is.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, we've heard tonight, I suspect, the most convoluted kind of defence that any minister in this House has ever put up. I suggest it's not only convoluted but the political argument is just patently and inherently dishonest.

The minister is putting forward the proposition that this Act is riddled with democracy, that this is a complete option for the college professionals to choose their route in terms of the representation, in terms of the collective bargaining structure they think most suits their needs. He says the innocuous amendment which gives this Act precedence over the Labour Code of British Columbia is some benign thing that is not very significant.

I want to draw the attention of the members, Mr. Chairman, to the previous section that was just passed, section 32. Professional staff is designated in that particular section. Professional staff means professional employees but does not include persons designated by the minister as serving the institution in a managerial or a confidential capacity. There's conflict with the Labour Code of British Columbia right off the bat.

Does the minister feel that it's more democratic for him as a politician to designate who should be in the bargaining unit and who should be excluded than it is for the Labour Relations Board, with the proper appeal system to open to trade unions and management groups? No, the minister has taken the arbitrary, authoritarian power unto himself, Mr. Chairman. And he has the gall to get up in this House and talk about democratic rights. That's crass nonsense and hypocrisy, Mr. Chairman.

Under this bill there will be - and I guarantee it -all kinds of conflict. I want to tell the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and the leader of the Conservative Party that under this bill, as I read it, there is no provision for dealing with disputes that may arise and lead to work stoppages. There's no resolution to that kind of dispute, despite the mechanism that's set up for their choice of rights, arbitration and so on.

If a work stoppage does ensue, then what is going to be the redress? How is the Labour Code going to apply under those circumstances when the only system of final resolution under this particular bill is the arbitration process? How are you going to order the workers back to work if they decide that's not good enough, that they're not getting a fair shake and they wildcat, or if the university management says: "Look, we don't agree with the arbitration award that was handed down and we're going to lock out the employees."? Now under this Act the mechanism and the model the minister has set up doesn't provide for that kind of eventuality. Conflict between this Act and the Labour Code holds that this Act is supreme. The Labour Code of British Columbia is not applicable.

Mr. Chairman, I'm appalled at the lack of consultation between the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour. I don't know what's going on over there ' but quite frankly, it terrifies me. We have a Minister of Labour who is too weak, to stand up and defend the jurisdiction that he holds to protect working people in this province.

[Mr. Kahl in the chair. I

He either doesn't understand the serious incursions that are being made into his jurisdiction or he doesn't care. I don't know whether the Liberals quit speaking to each other when they joined that side of the House or not, Mr. Chairman, but I see serious problems down the road unless that government cleans up their act.

Now the Minister of Labour has been caught in a faux pas in the last few days which he's going to have difficulty recovering from. The yolk of the egg is still dripping down his chin, Mr. Chairman. And now the Minister of Education once again, in his heavy-handed, elitist fashion, is presuming to write a new Labour Code for the colleges of this province. And he sits there in smug superiority and fails to come to any realistic grips with the questions that are posed to him.

There is going to be great conflict. There are circumstances that obviously the minister hasn't given any thought to whatsoever. It's not just probabilities. Section 32 spells out clearly the conflict for designating who'll be in the unit and who will not as between this Act and the Labour Code of British Columbia. There's a democratic mechanism for that selection and that determination under the Labour Code. There's nothing here but an authoritarian designation by the minister. Do you know, Mr. Minister, that strikes of long, bitter duration have taken place in this province over that very question? This is shocking.

Apparently these sharpies over there can't clean up their act. They haven't done their homework and they don't know what they're getting into. It's a shocking thing. You should withdraw this bill and get some advice from someone who knows what they're talking about. For gosh sakes, if the Minister of Labour doesn't understand it, I'm sure there are people in his department who do. And I'm sure there are advisers in various other areas in the government who can give you some sound advice in terms of an approach to industrial relations.

[ Page 5463 ]

We don't mind the innovation. If you want to set up options for innovations and free choice of the people, fair enough. But it doesn't go that far. You've given them a Hobson's choice. If you go this route, you don't receive any of the protections of the Labour Code. You are fair victims for unfair labour practices by the college administration and you have no protection. That's what this Act says. It's an abysmal mess.

And that minister who's supposed to have some superior intellect sits there - the guy who wrote Politics in Paradise. My God, I think we're going to make him one of the players in that script, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, section 85 of this Act, if we get there and pass it, states that the minister may make regulations. Under section 33 (8) , what would prevent the minister from passing a regulation saying that while the Labour Code applies to everything else, for the purposes of section 33, the subject matter that may be negotiated excludes the subject matter of section 36, which is the honey that's been put in there to attract people to this professional clause and away from the Labour Code model clause?

What is to prevent the minister from making explicit what I believe to be implicit in this legislation, that somehow the Labour Code model isn't good enough for the folks who work in colleges? What's to prevent that?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Perhaps, as the member says, it's too good. That would allow them to create too much trouble. Maybe that's what the minister has in mind. Perhaps it enables them to go out for their rights in too strong a fashion.

Mr. Chairman, it just bothers me very much that the minister is not prepared to stand up and say to this House that it is a policy of his government that the Labour Code shall apply in every instance, with the exception of the one instance he has specified -namely, the right to explain this bill to employees on campuses, which no one would begrudge in any way whatsoever. Why would he not stand up and say that it's his policy, and he will remedy, by legislative or administrative action, any use of subsection (a) to section 33 apart from that?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I have already said it three times. I don't really know how often one has to say these things. With respect to a question raised about regulations under the Act -that, of course, comes later - and just speaking in a general way, Mr. Chairman, and the member really should well know this: one cannot just draft any order-in-council that one pleases under an Act. They have no force in effect if they're inconsistent with the Act. You can't make regulations that are inconsistent with an Act.

Quite clearly, under section 33, parts IV and V say that the Labour Code of British Columbia applies to those who choose the Labour Code of British Columbia. Now you may say, Mr. Member, that no one begrudges that, but I tell you, they do begrudge it. We've been listening for almost two hours of not just grudging over provisions in a bill, but terror, that given the free choice, the people in the colleges might decide not to be trade unionists. What a blow to the NDP, Mr. Chairman, who can't think in terms of anything but the trade union movement.

If those who are in the colleges feel that that model is best for them, then this section very clearly permits them to use the Labour Relations Act to the full extent of that Act. There's every opportunity under section 33, and no regulation under section 85 could take that away. So, Mr. Chairman, the latitude that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano concocts as he formulates his arguments in debate, is really not part of parliamentary practice of the past, present or future. I don't know, Mr. Chairman, what sort of practice took place in Ottawa with respect to orders-in-council, but I can testify from experience in this Legislature and the interpretations of the department of the Attorney-General here - not just under this government, but under a prior government - that you do not pass orders-in-council and the Lieutenant-Governor does not sign orders-in-council that are inconsistent with Acts that have been passed by the Legislature. So the member can sound impressive in debate and his words will be duly recorded in Hansard, but it won't alter the facts of the situation. I can only say, with respect to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, who's now left the chamber, that he's a former Minister of Labour and he's a former trade union member. He understands the trade union movement; he understands the Labour Relations Act. But the same size shoe doesn't fit every foot, and what is excellent for railroading unions may not suit the people who are educators on college campuses or in universities or even the public school system. I know that.

You can't get through to the member who thinks the working people of this province must be protected and they've got to be ... all these rules about wildcat strikes and so on. Certainly these things have been experienced in the industrial world and have been part of the evolution of the trade union movement. But it's not been part of the evolution of the educational system and to the extent that those who are professionals in that system see their future in a different way, the options are provided under this particular bill. But it doesn't require that they choose that option; it merely gives them the choice.

[ Page 5464 ]

The former Minister of Labour may consider that a Hobson's choice, because for him it's the trade union movement or nothing.

But that option just doesn't happen to be shared by everybody. It's certainly not shared by me. It's not shared by the B.C. Teachers Federation, let alone the teachers themselves, It's not shared by university faculties and, as far as we can tell, it's not shared by all of those who are college instructors.

It may be shared by some, and it's quite conceivable that those people are gathered together on individual campuses. It may be that all the colleges vote to go the trade union route. If that's the case, that will ' I be the way the Act applies. But it's also possible, Mr. Chairman - and this is something that will only be determined by experience - that some, just some, may choose a different route. It's possible.

But in the event that the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) is correct, and the trade union movement is the only way for professional educators to go then, , of course, they will ratify that under section 33 and the member will have been proved correct, There will just be a little bit of proof in the coming months and everyone will know. But what greater vindication of the trade union movement that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) and the member for Revelstoke-Slocan espoused than to have it voluntarily chosen by the college faculties in the face of other options? What greater vindication could there be?

So, Mr. Chairman, I would think no one as confident as the member for Revelstoke-Slocan or the Leader of the Opposition about the correctness of the position that they take could do anything other than to welcome the best that this bill offers, because their model will pass with flying colours. That option will be voluntarily chosen and their convictions will be vindicated.

Mr. Chairman, I would think the official opposition, of all parties in the House, should be the ones keenest to see the provisions of this Act implemented, because that's the way their point of view can be proved to be the correct one.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, in reply to my earlier question, the minister. . . . My question was to describe the conflict that could arise, and the minister has explained that one situation where there could be a conflict - namely, consultation between board and all levels of staff could constitute an unfair labour practice while they're deliberating as to which option they choose. Now I'll buy that, All I'm saying is: why don't we have an amendment to cover that one situation? But instead of that, we have it amended to open the whole door.

Yes, you can shake your head, Mr. Minister. It's plain English. The amendment says that "where there is a conflict between this Act and the Labour Code of British Columbia, this Act applies." Now you've told us that the only reason we've had to amend it is that there is one particular situation - and I won't waste time by repeating it again - regarding unfair labour practice. Now why doesn't the amendment relate to that one single situation of the unfair labour practice about consultation prior to choosing the option? Then it would be crystal clear. But it wouldn't leave this minister or succeeding ministers with all kinds of ways of saying that there is a conflict and that the Labour Code is not applicable in this situation or that situation.

If we could just put our partisan blinkers aside for two seconds, Mr. Chairman.... The minister can ridicule the member for Revelstoke-Slocan all he likes, but he is an experienced man who's been in the heat of the position of Minister of Labour, and I respect that member when he tells us that this legislation is full of holes that can lead us into all difficulties down the road.

Now let's put the partisan blinkers aside just for five seconds and realize that this member for Revelstoke-Slocan is trying to offer a constructive suggestion that will prevent a whole lot of trouble in the future. But no, we get this same attitude that this is the way it is and this is the way it's going to be -namely, that this Act will apply rather than the Labour Code if there is any conflict.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this minister has only outlined one specific situation where there might be the danger of college staffs or boards being accused of unfair labour practice by trying to persuade, or coerce, or whatever, the decision reached by the staff in choosing the option they want out of the ways in which they can negotiate their terms of employment.

I don't know how often I've stood on this side or I've sat on this side of the House in the years gone by and listened to this minister make exactly the same kind of point of principle that we're all making tonight - namely, that if there has to be an amendment to cover a certain single situation, then make the amendment relate clearly and specifically to that single situation. But don't give the legislation the whole power of a single bill and, in this case, rather more accurately to say, wipe out the whole power of a single bill ---~ namely, the Labour Code.

I see the deputy minister now shaking his head. And I think, Mr. Chairman, that the whole purpose of persistent and repeated statements by opposition members is usually when we honestly believe that we've got a point that is worth considering for the minister's benefit, never mind anybody else. But he's more or less taking the attitude that, "Well, if the opposition's correct and these problems arise, we'll deal with them as they arise, "

Surely it makes a great deal more sense to consider that a person like the former Minister of Labour

[ Page 5465 ]

maybe just knows what he's talking about. He has seen it. He talks, for example, about the power of designation which this minister has given himself and points out that there have been strikes of great length on that very point in the past. I wasn't aware of that until tonight. Maybe the minister wasn't aware, because he's no more an expert on this than I am, obviously.

I'm just saying again, Mr. Chairman: to make this Legislature a functioning, successful, mature, productive kind of chamber for debate, surely the minister should realize that these points are very worthy of consideration. The only way in which this Act is going to be successful is because it instills in the staffs of our colleges and institutes confidence that the bill really means what it says, that it does give the staff realistic options which actually mean what the minister has said tonight. But to turn to section 33 as amended and say that they have every assurance that the Labour Code will apply except for that one single situation, and then to write in the amendment in such a way that, really, any provision of the Labour Code might be superseded by this bill, again, as I've said earlier tonight, is just a total contradiction of what section 33 is supposed to provide to those who choose it, namely to go the trade union route.

I hope the minister would still consider and amend the bill to provide that one situation. That's what Professor Buckley asked in this meeting that the minister had with the B.C. association of colleges. There again, it's in this letter, dated September 2, to bursars, chairmen, principals and executive members. Professor Buckley suggested that a statement that such discussion would not be an unfair labour practice should be made, That was the only point, apparently, that came up in this meeting which they had. I gather there were a substantial number of officers from the B.C. Association of Colleges and the Council of B.C. College Principals - a two-hour meeting with the Minister of Education, the deputy minister and the associate deputy minister. That was a substantial meeting that apparently went on for two hours. We've got the three gentlemen here tonight who could confirm that that was the one and only point that seemed to be causing concern - the possibility of an accusation of an unfair labour practice prior to making the choice.

So why shouldn't the amendment just straighten that one point out? Professor Buckley is obviously an educated man. He just saw that that was all that was needed to be straightened out. He was naive enough to say that all it needed was a statement from the minister. At least the minister knows better than that; the minister knows that it had to be included in the legislation. So when we should have heard an amendment clarifying that one specific instance, we've got an amendment that in effect gives the minister the power to arbitrarily decide that all kinds of other provisions of the Labour Code might on his decision be wiped out in the case of those who choose to become certified or want to become certified.

I suggest that this is exactly the kind of excessive power that the minister has given himself in this section which he used to stand on this side of the House as a Liberal and very scathingly criticize the Social Credit government of that day for, The explanation we got from the ministers of that government was: "Well, we just have to straighten out this one situation." Time and time again, the present minister stood up on this side of the House and lambasted the former Social Credit government for taking far more power than was needed just to straighten out this one kind of situation.

It's an old trick, and I suppose I'm now being rather naive to suggest that governments ever change. There's never enough power. The minister laughs. It is amazing, Mr. Chairman, the way people can stand on this side of the House in opposition and argue from a base of principle and reason. But they get over there and become ministers, and then look out! When they decide to take power, as has happened in this bill, boy, do they ever do it in style. I wouldn't bore the House or the public of B.C. by reciting some of the speeches of that minister which just clarify and repeat many times over the very point I'm making.

I know that all my pleas won't change the minister at this stage of the game, but I think this one particular amendment goes far and way beyond what is required to clarify the one specific instance which quite legitimately could be interpreted as an unfair labour practice.

HON. MR. McGEER: I suppose governments find themselves seeking and accepting the same legal counsels as they change their position. We did meet with the chairman of the Selkirk college council and other people who drew our attention to this aspect. Following those meetings we sought the advice of legal counsel and I can only give the member the benefit of that advice as we received it.

First of all, the route that was chosen was their recommendation. Legal counsel advises that in order for smooth interpretation of legislation by everyone concerned, state things as explicitly as possible and to cover adequately the foreseen circumstances. Notwithstanding the explicit statement here, one could still have gone with this Act at the expense of considerable wrestling in the court but, nevertheless, emerging with the same answer, perhaps, as if the section has not been included. It's a general principle of the courts and I would defer to....

MR. WALLACE: It would be the Labour Relations Board, not the courts.

[ Page 5466 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: When two statutes are in conflict, then the most recently passed statute takes precedence. We are going to be faced, in any event, if there are challenges between this legislation and the Labour Relations Act . . . since this is passed subsequently this will prevail. All that this statement does is make explicit what is implicit by statutory practice. It deals adequately with the situation.

MR. WALLACE: Prevents the challenge.

HON. MR. McGEER: The point about it is that the challenge consumes time and effort and the outcome will probably be determined anyway by the practice.

MR. WALLACE: It doesn't prove it right!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm just explaining to the member what interpretations of the courts have been. As I have explained many times, Mr. Chairman, we can debate and pass legislation but we can't say how it will be interpreted. That's going to fall to others. If, in the legislation that we pass, we invite struggles over the interpretation then we have probably not done our job particularly well. Of course, what legal counsel always advises governments to do is pass legislation that will avoid, wherever possible, subsequent conflict.

Statutes sometimes do conflict with one another and in such cases the most recently passed statute applies. What we have here is something which is eminently workable. It suits the purposes to which it is addressed. It doesn't limit in any way the Labour Relations Act or its application. Certainly one could never pass regulations that would be in conflict with sections 4 or 5 which are explicitly stated here. Therefore the member is really inventing circumstances, rather than addressing possibilities. I can only pass on the advice from legal counsel which I respect, and which I believe to be correct.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. member from Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) has been waiting for some time to take her place and I will be very brief. I just want to have a moment of rebuttal because some time ago I suggested to the minister under the terms of section 33 (8) it was conceivable that he might use his regulatory power under section 85 to pass regulations which would have the effect of restricting the application of the Labour Code, and stopping certain subjects from bargaining. The minister said this government would never pass that kind of regulation.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, you couldn't. It wouldn't be possible.

MR. GIBSON: The minister is saying across the floor - he's getting quite exercised - that it's not possible. I want to give him an example where within the last 10 days the government has passed exactly such a regulation. That relates in this particular case to the Sales Tax Act, with which the minister may or may not be familiar - the regulation section. So the minister understands just what a grave, apparent breach this was, but nevertheless an action was entered into by the government. I'll read a few lines. It's speaking about how the regulatory power may, in some cases, be used to reduce the tax in specific circumstances. It says:

"For the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act according to their true intent and of supplying any deficiency there, and then for the purpose of relaxing the strictness of the law relative to the incidence or the collection of the tax thereunder, in cases where, without relaxation, great public inconvenience or great hardship or injustice to persons or individuals could not be avoided, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make such regulations as are considered necessary or advisable."

Under that very restrictive regulatory authority, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, a week or two ago, wiped out sales tax on insulation materials.

MR. WALLACE: How about non-prescription drugs when they're at it?

MR. GIBSON: It was a move that, of itself, was a good move; but such an abuse of the regulatory power is extraordinary. So the minister can't stand there and say to me the minister would never use a regulatory Section 1n that way, when his government just finished doing exactly the same thing two weeks ago.

As the minister knows, this House has no committee on statutory instruments. We've begged the Attorney-General many times that we should have one. With no committee on statutory instruments there's no formalized way this Legislature can get the kind of regulations he might pass, as they might apply to this section to limit the protection available to persons who choose to bargain under this Labour Code model. So as long as that subsection 1s in there, I just have to be against it.

MRS. DAILLY: Just before we move on to the next section, I just want to make a final point on this one. I want to put the record clear. The minister seemed to imply that the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) and the NDP are in favour of only one option, and that's unionization of

[ Page 5467 ]

faculties. At no time has this ever been so.

As a matter of fact, we believe in freedom of choice. But this minister does not, because he's actually stated that he doesn't believe faculties should move into trade unionization. A bill we're going to be discussing shortly proves that. So it's the minister himself who has shown by his actions that he doesn't believe in freedom of choice.

My final question to him on this clause is this. He stated earlier that he's giving them a choice which they didn't have before: would he please explain to the House where the faculties in our colleges did not have a choice before to choose the way they wanted to organize? This seems to be the whole issue of this bill and this section. You are telling us that you had to do this to give them a choice. I'm asking you: did they not have a choice before?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the whole purpose of sections 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 is to provide choices that were not available under the NDP.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make is that if the minister had been listening to the faculties and to the college boards, they have told you that they were quite satisfied to be left alone to decide on their own how they want to organize. Now what arrogance of this minister to say that now he's giving them a choice; they could make up their own minds before.

Now you're laying them out and you're putting so many containments on them - as has been shown tonight - it's going to be confusing. They're not going to know which way to turn. You've given no answers to this convoluted legislation in front of us. Let them go back to where they were. There were no complaints.

Who, wanted to bring this in anyway? Certainly not the people who are involved in it. I just can't accept that answer, Mr. Minister, and I know that the college boards and the college faculties do not accept it.

Section 33 as amended approved.

On section 34.

HON. MR. McGEER: I move the first amendment standing under my name on the order paper, which is in subsection (2) , line 2. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. McGEER: I move the second amendment standing under my name on the order paper, which is subsection (2) (a) , line 3. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 34 as amended approved.

On section 35.

HON. MR. McGEER: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 35 as amended.

MR. COCKE: This is the beginning of that great crusade where the minister is allowing so many things that were not allowed before. He allows now, Mr. Chairman, that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may prescribe the method by which the vote is taken. You know, here is where he really begins to get interfering with the Labour Code. It's just another area where the ministerial powers of cabinet are going to be used to mitigate the opportunities that are provided in law already for people in the colleges.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I would just make the point that the Labour Relations Board, in the first instance under section 33 (4) , makes the determination, and it's only subsequent to that Labour Relations Board supervision of the vote that we move on, if the faculty so chooses, to section 35.

MR. COCKE: Is it not correct - is my interpretation of this wrong - that the Labour Relations Board, which I consider to be the appropriate agency to conduct a vote, is now not the appropriate agency by this very section?

HON. MR. McGEER: The Labour Relations Board carries it out in the first instance, Mr. Member, and it's only if they make the decision to go under the Divisions (2) or (3) that the subsequent choice is made. But in the first instance, the Labour Relations Board is in charge of the vote.

MR. COCKE: Okay, then, my second point in this Section 1s the use of the term "professional employee." Here, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that management, particularly managerial personnel in smaller colleges, can control the vote. And where does faculty come in under those circumstances? Again, I suggest that this would normally be a contravention of the Labour Code, but, on the other hand, the Labour Code is precluded by an amendment to a previous section.

HON. MR. McGEER: If they've chosen (2) or (3) , Mr. Chairman, then these provisions come into effect,

[ Page 5468 ]

but not if they choose the Labour Relations Act route. If they decide to go the trade union route, then, of course, this doesn't come into effect at all.

So I think that it's only after that rejection, or in the event that such a rejection is made, that you begin to seek a different model whereby there isn't a confrontation situation set up between professionals who are in the management post and professionals who are in so-called non-management posts.

MR. COCKE: Well, just one final word on it, Mr. Chairman. I would suggest that the minister, in order to obtain his objective of encouraging the professionals not to form bargaining units, is going to have a piece of legislation that's going to need amendment after amendment after amendment in the future, because I really think it's going to be a real problem in legislation.

MR. KING: This is the section that provides for the representation vote, as I understand it.

HON. MR. McGEER: That was section 33 (4) where the representation vote was taking place.

MR. KING: Oh yes. Well, I wonder if the minister can answer this question under the general section anyway. I'm wondering about the status of part-time employees of the colleges. Will they be included, not only the certification vote, but in the selection of the method they wish to choose?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I wonder, then, can the minister explain what kind of administrative setup is going to be designed to determine when the numbers are fixed, including the part-time employees who may be in the college to reach a two-week course and maybe some students, even, teaching short-term courses? Presumably then - according to the minister - they will be allowed to vote, not only in the certification process but in the designation of the approach they wish to take, whether it be the Labour Code or the provisions of this bill. When will the unit be determined for the purpose of deciding those questions? When the application is made, when the issue comes before the board or when? At what point does the determination become effective as to who is in the bargaining unit - the numbers - so that percentages can be figured out?

HON. MR. McGEER: That would be made by the Labour Relations Board, Mr. Chairman, using the definition of "professional employee" under ' the interpretation division of the Act. So the Labour Relations Board would be the ones to decide.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, then the Labour Relations Board presumably would be charged with the responsibility for taking a nose count, as it were, in the various institutions throughout the province, determining the number of part-time employees who may be involved. Conceivably under that situation the employer - the management of the college -would have the opportunity to inflate the rolls of employees eligible to vote and affect the direction the unit takes. This is not an uncommon practice in the private sector, where in applying for certification, management, if they feel they can affect the outcome of the vote, simply increase their roster of employees with some select few who conform to their own wishes. Has the minister thought of including a prohibition against that kind of manipulation of the employment roster in this situation?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it certainly wouldn't be possible under the present situation, because the budgets are determined by the ministry and the courses which are permitted are determined by the ministry, so that one can't go hiring a bunch of part-time people without first getting permission of the ministry, which we wouldn't give.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, am I to understand then that the budget controlled by the minister extends to granting specific authority for each and every short-term course that may be mounted in the colleges and the vocational institutions of the province? Is there not a global budget which provides for short-term courses that is determined by the colleges when it will be utilized and mounted?

HON. MR. McGEER: The course content has been pretty tightly controlled - probably too tightly controlled. Any additional courses are what are called RACs - requests for additional courses - that are dealt with by the ministry on an individual basis, so the answer is no, they wouldn't be in a position to do that.

Section 35 as amended approved.

On section 36.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I move the three amendments standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 36 as amended approved.

On section 37.

HON. MR. McGEER: I move the amendment

[ Page 5469 ]

standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved,

Section 37 as amended approved.

Sections 38 and 39 approved.

On section 40,

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, here we are getting into some more trouble, I think, in terms of the grievance procedures. It seems to me that there's no provision for a grievance procedure to be bargained for. However, in section 43, dealing with the rights of arbitration, there you find a limited interpretation. It's limited to the agreement and says nothing about discipline and discharge, which are normally ordinary grievance issues. I just don't know how you're going to work around that one.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, this is essentially modelled on the Public Schools Act experience, which has developed over a number of years. There are some modifications, but I don't think the modifications would destroy a process that has worked in another professional education sphere for some years with success.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister throws around "professional" all the time. I just merely asked a question. Can discipline or discharge be considered to be grievance procedures under these two sections? Really you have to read together sections 40 and 43.

HON. MR. McGEER: I would say yes, Mr. Chairman.

Section 40 approved.

On section 4 1.

HON. MR. McGEER: I move the first amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. McGEER: I move the second amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 41 as amended approved.

Sections 42 to 44 inclusive approved.

On section 45.

MR. COCKE: I suggest this will weaken the ability of associations to provide fair and uniform conditions of employment for membership.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, this section has to do with those who are currently in the public service and who will be moving to independent corporations. It's a transitional section. I'm informed that it parallels what the previous government did for BCIT. We think it's an adequate provision for those few employees who will be now employees not of the government itself but of independent corporations.

Sections 45 and 46 approved.

On section 47.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, now we're coming into the council area. Here, Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with the occupational training council. It consists of nine members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This is the beginning, of course, of steps to the stars. I would suggest, in the first place, that it's likely to be unworkable. I should say that at best it's going to be very awkward and at worst it's going to be unworkable. All these steps really lead to the door of the minister. That's what we're talking about. I certainly can't vote for this section.

Sections 47 to 49 inclusive approved.

On section 50.

MR. COCKE: Here we're dealing with the academic council, their establishment of academic advisory committees, and all of the work that they do - here again, Mr. Chairman, the first step on the academic side of that stairway leading to the minister's office. As we have said from the very outset, Mr. Chairman, if you go over this section very carefully, what we have here in this academic council is the beginning of a stairway to confusion. Again it's going to be awkward at best and unworkable at worst, and it's likely to be unworkable.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I detect that the member opposite has little confidence in this bill, but we think the councils will work extremely well.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister feels that the councils will work extremely well. I suggest to you that the councils will work extremely well for the minister, providing him with all the authority in

[ Page 5470 ]

the world to do exactly as he wants with what used to be the community college system, taking away all of the autonomy, all of the local decision-making, and vesting it in that power-hungry minister - that arrogant, elitist minister.

That's just for the record, that's all. (Laughter.)

Section 50 approved.

On section 51.

HON. MR. McGEER: He hasn't made that speech before.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, let the minister get up and do his penance before the House and indicate what he has done. It's very interesting. He has been under a great deal of fire under this section and, now he has taken the principals out, why doesn't he get up and explain what he has done?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the original intention of the management advisory council was one for purely administrative function until it was pointed out that we needed a separate council with corporate powers to handle the capital side of the funding structure. Giving the management advisory council that kind of corporate status, it would have been anomalous to have the executive officers, who were employees of the individual councils, members of a corporation in their own right. This is why we made the change to have that advisory council made up of board people rather than the chief executive officers.

MR. COCKE: You know, Mr. Chairman, the minister finally has seen a little bit of.... Actually, it's very difficult to cope with a very bad bill but at least he's taken some advice and not placed his chief executive officers at each of these institutions in an impossible position where in fact they would be giving orders to the board that they are supposed to be taking orders from. But that shows his intentions were to take all the power and all the authority away from the local decision-making bodies. Congratulations. This is the only place I really think I can congratulate you at all on this.

Section 51 as amended approved.

Sections 52 to 63 inclusive approved.

On section 64.

HON. MR. McGEER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 64 as amended approved.

Sections 65 to 82 inclusive approved.

On section 83.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, of course, this is one of the most controversial sections in a very controversial, unacceptable Act. When we were discussing it earlier today, the discussion was cut off on this whole matter of including BUT in the colleges Act before us. It was decided that we could continue our discussion in the proper section here on 8 3, so I just thought I would make that point in case it was suggested that we.... Yes, it's a different Chairman.

MR. WALLACE: A very understanding Chairman.

MRS. DAILLY: Very understanding, right.

I simply cannot understand how the minister, despite all the protestations he's had from BUT and from the other groups who may not be involved in BCIT, asking him to hold back and not to include BCIT in this Act, is able to completely ignore it and insist on pushing it through. It's interesting to note that Mr. Goard, who actually was commissioned to do a report for the minister in this whole area of post-secondary education, has actually stated that the hearings of the commission, which he held on behalf of the minister, revealed satisfaction of industry and the general public with the present work and status of BCIT. He states: "This should be maintained." This is one of the minister's own commissioners who studied this matter. He listened to the public, he's had a tremendous amount of input, and he came to this conclusion.

Yet here we are, standing here tonight, faced with a section which completely repudiates the recommendation of one of the minister's own commissioners, and also the recommendations and wishes of most of the people involved in this, particularly in BCIT.

The BUT Act, as the minister well knows, was brought in by the NDP administration. As with any new Act, there were problems. There were struggles in the creation of anything, and I accept that. But after it has been in place now for over three years, the general opinion is that it is a most acceptable Act. It's working well. So my question to the minister is: why change it? Again, is it because of something that the NDP brought in that must be wiped out and obliterated, good or bad?

[ Page 5471 ]

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Just like the VRB.

MRS. DAILLY: Just like the VRB. I think the minister has to give to this House a far better explanation of why this is going to be done to BCIT. We haven't really heard it yet. He certainly hasn't satisfied those who are involved. It's an excellent Act in place, and here this minister wants us to sit here tonight and wipe it out. I can assure you that we don't want to be part of this, and we don't intend to be part of it.

BCIT is a unique institution. I know the minister himself stated it earlier today. Because of its uniqueness, this was recognized by the NDP government. That's why it was given the special status in a special Act. We are concerned that only negative outcomes will be the result of placing it under the colleges Act. I think it's up to this minister to point out very explicitly now to the House what the positive outcomes are that he foresees from this.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Act is the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act. We'll come to the title later. But I think it adequately expresses the mainstream which will exist for our post-secondary institutions.

Section 83 provides that BCIT can be part of that mainstream. We couldn't want to see them excluded. The Section 1s, of course, a permissive section and it doesn't require that it be implemented immediately. But as I've explained earlier today, it will be greatly to the advantage of BCIT to be in the mainstream, and that's why we have the provision for them to be included.

Of course, when institutions first evolve, in the absence of other institutions that would require Acts of their own, they would sit alone. The University of British Columbia was under a single Act until other universities were created, which provided for a general Universities Act. And BCIT, being one of the few institutions that had evolved independently, of course, was the first to have its own Act in the colleges and provincial institutes sphere. But the circumstances are changed with this Act, since all would become independent corporations, with methods of funding those corporations.

As I say, BCIT will do extremely well within this framework, and that's why we wanted BCIT to have the opportunity to become full participants in the new mainstream. So this is anything but a backward step. What it does is recognize and make adequate provision for the future.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, what the minister has really said is that he's had task forces running about the province to take advice from different groups as to how they want to go. Everybody agreed that there was a need for a colleges Act. Incidentally, they didn't agree to the one that we have before us. But the one thing there seems to be unanimity around is that the BCIT people and those professional advisers around the province who know something about it for the most part indicate very clearly that this Act should not apply to BCIT at the present time.

I think that the minister is running right into prevailing opinion by enforcing what would seem to be a retrogressive step. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the minister would do what he did with a section just a while ago, and amend the section by deleting it, for the time being at least, until such time as he knows where his Act is going.

The minister admits that a lot of this is trial and error. So why would the minister want to vest the BCIT with an Act that could very well set them back? They're going along very well, thank you. I suggest to the minister that just by the stroke of a pen, signing a motion paper tonight, he can delete section 83 and go on about his business. At least that way he hasn't antagonized everybody in the college scene. Certainly then he would have left a few people in BCIT with some respect for his understanding of the needs of the post-secondary education field.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, if it would be to the advantage of BCIT not to have the part applying to them proclaimed, then, of course, We wouldn't proclaim it. But if it were to their advantage to have it proclaimed, then it would be doing them a disservice to have excluded them.

Mr. Chairman, I think I've indicated several times this evening that it will be decidedly to the advantage of BCIT, in our view, to be included. But if unforeseen circumstances were to develop that made it appear that that wasn't the case - that is, unforeseen by us, perhaps foreseen by the member opposite - then, of course, we wouldn't need to proclaim this part.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister gives us a very reasonable and very quiet argument, and certainly at this hour of the night that's the way one should be.

Proclamation is at the minister's discretion. He makes that decision. He goes to his cabinet, who he obviously has a great deal of influence with, to the extent that he's now running not only the Ministry of Health, but we've all known for a long time that he's also running the Ministry of Labour and probably one or two others that we don't even suspect as yet.... But, Mr. Chairman, to suggest for one second that this is the way that it should be - that proclamation is at the minister's decree when the minister decides it's good or bad for BCIT....

I will give the minister an alternative: delete the section now and consider it in consultation with the

[ Page 5472 ]

people whom you didn't consult with when you should have. Consult with them, and, Mr. Chairman, next year, if consultation has brought you to the point in time where they should be included, we will have a session next spring and then you can bring it in.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I am strongly opposed to this bill not only because of the essential content of the section, but because it refutes the minister's statement that there has been lengthy consultation with parties concerned. If there has been - and I dispute that there has been to the degree the minister mentions - he certainly has ignored the wishes and the requests of the people from BCIT. Let that be clearly on the record. The minister indeed has the authority to write the legislation the way he decides is best in his judgment. But don't tell this House and don't tell the people of British Columbia that what he's doing in section 83 is in any way what the people of BCIT wanted. It was, as I understand it, almost unanimous - if not unanimous - that they wanted to remain under the existing Act. As the member for Burnaby North pointed out, it was only three years ago that the Act was implemented.

All things considered, it's working well, To now throw this very complicated bill into the situation and bring BCIT into functioning under at least three councils, which are new - and the structure of which and the terms of the reference of which are anything but clear-cut - just adds uncertainty and instability to the functioning of BCIT.

The minister says glibly: "Well, this is a proclamation section and maybe we won't proclaim it if BCIT doesn't want it." But the other side of that coin, Mr. Chairman, is that as minister, he may well proclaim it, whether they want it or not. If he really believes in autonomy and respect for groups within the total spectrum of the Education ministry, surely the decent and reasonable thing to do would be to respect their wishes, which are here in various communications which we have all received as MLAs.

Again, I would just like to quote a neutral source. Professor Dennison says: "In essence, it appears that few convincing arguments can be made for the inclusion of BCIT within the Act. It seems more logical to pay heed to the unique nature of the institute, to accept the legislative history of the past few years, and to recognize the present and potential qualities of the institution by reaffirming BCIT under its current status." That's a neutral, skilled and highly respected educator who has no axe to grind for or against the people who work at BCIT. I've already quoted the Goard report; which said that they really didn't have a chance. They didn't have the time to look at the BCIT situation and therefore they couldn't make any recommendations. So, in the absence of recommendations from the commission that the minister set up, and in view of the strong request by BCIT to be left under the Act they have, that would seem to be to.... And the fact that obviously this is not some urgent, pressing.... We don't have some critical situation at BCIT that has to be solved by providing this option for the minister, at his whim, to proclaim a section of this bill and bring BUT under this new, complex bill which has such far-reaching ramifications. So I still wonder if the minister, in light of all the arguments we presented, would not reconsider.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11 p.m.

[ Page 5473 ]

APPENDIX

S2 The Hon. P. L. McGeer to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 82) intituled Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act, to amend as follows:

Section 33 (4) , line 3: By deleting "subsection (1) " and substituting "subsection (3) ".

Section 33: By adding immediately after subsection (7):

" (8) Where there is a conflict between this Act and the Labour Code of British Columbia, this Act applies."

Section 34 (2) , line 2: By deleting "institution" and substituting "institution or an institution locks out its employee".

Section 34 (2) (a) , line 3: By deleting "of the withdrawal of his service if he had not withdrawn his services, and" and substituting "of the withdrawal of services or the lockout if the employee had worked, and".

Section 35 (1) (a) , line 1: By deleting "section 33 (4) " and substituting 44 section 33 (3) ".

Section 36: By deleting subsection (2) and renumbering section 36 (1) as section 36.

Section 36, line 1: By deleting "the recommendation of the minister" and substituting "the joint recommendation of the minister and an institution and its professional employees".

Section 36, line 2: By deleting "an" and substituting "the".

Section 37 (5) , line 1: By inserting "for the professional staff of an institution" immediately after "association".

Section 41 (9) , line 10: By inserting "and~' immediately after "its lock-out".

Section 41 (9) , line 11: By deleting "and paragraphs (a) and (b) apply".

Section 51 (1) , line 2: By deleting "chief executive officer of each institution" and substituting "the chairman of the board of each institution or a person designated by the chairman"..

Section 64 (2) , line 2: By deleting "board" and substituting "council".