[ Page 2195 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 26). Second reading.

On the amendment

Mr. Lockstead –– 2195

Mr. Cocke –– 2196

Mr. Nicolson –– 2201

Mr. Hanson –– 2204

Mrs. Dailly –– 2209

Mr. Mitchell –– 2212

Division –– 2214

Mr. Stupich –– 2214

Mr. Barrett –– 2219

Mr. Gabelmann –– 2225

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2236

Mr. Skelly –– 2240

Mr. Macdonald –– 2243

Mrs. Wallace –– 2245

Mr. Blencoe –– 2249

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2253

Division –– 2256

Municipal Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 9). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Ritchie.)

On Section I –– 2256

Mr. Howard

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Sanford

On the amendment to section 2 –– 2260

Mr. Howard

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Nicolson

Mrs. Dailly

Division

Institute of Technology Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 19). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 2267

Mrs. Dailly –– 2268

Appendix –– 2269

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1983

The House met at 8:04 p.m.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I notice that in this last week the opposition benches have introduced something new to the House in terms of recognition of teams within the opposition benches — the A team, B team and C team — but I really want to give recognition to a team that is not present this evening. I notice that there are many empty seats in the opposition benches tonight. I can only assume that they have discovered that sleep is a cure for insomnia, but not quite as good a cure as having to listen to their speeches — but almost. It seems to me that, although our friends across the way may have now proved that a human being can go without sleep for many hours, without water for many days, without food for many weeks and without ideas for many years, we should at least recognize the absence of those who even now, in near or far cots, are dreaming of a utopia which can never be realized by the Rip van Winkles of this world. They are sleeping and deserve recognition, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. minister.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I just feel that those who are not here should be recognized as the team that has been forgotten. I would just like to send a button over to the members of the opposition teams which are not here: members of the ZZZ team, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROSE: In response, I agree with the hon. minister and I think that her remarks were extremely sensitive and heartfelt. So in recognition of this sort of courtesy she paid to the opposition, I move that the hon. minister be adopted as red.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I need to comment: I'm the recipient of a button. I would like to draw attention to this particularly beautifully coloured button, but point out that the hon. minister obviously went out of her way to have it printed in a scab shop; there is no union label on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is one thing to rise on a point of order and make an observation which in itself may or may not be out of order; but, hon. member, I would caution that the method in which the member has placed the badge on the table....

MR. HOWARD: It was supposed to go in the basket, but I missed.

MR. SPEAKER: Fine, hon. member, but before we proceed further.... I think we have had an ideal opportunity to see what happens when we digress from the routine to which we are accustomed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I resume the business of the evening and once again call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 26. The young gentleman over there is seeking the floor.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I thank the hon. House Leader. "Young gentleman" — I haven't been called that in many years, particularly the gentleman part. Thank you very much.

I do have a few minutes left, and I want to complete my presentation before I accept my Z button. There has been some levity in the House for the past few minutes and that is all very well; we all require that from time to time. But Bill 26 is a serious bill because it is part of a package of anti-working people, anti-labour bills that this government has decided to bring in this particular session, after it won the election, and that they didn't discuss prior to the last election campaign. I am not alone in my interpretation of this particular piece of legislation. I did read into the record some reactions of well-known labour reporters around the province. There is one more I would like to read in — at least, part of a column I would like to read in — before I complete my presentation. The reason I want to read this particular column by Rod Mickleburgh of theVancouver Province into the record.... It is entitled "Private Sector Hit by Bill 26." I am just going to read it very quickly and complete my presentation. The column says:

"There are a lot of sleepers, besides the knockout bunch that permits firing without cause, in the legislative gauntlet tossed down by the provincial government. One of them, the Employment Standards Amendment Act, Bill 26, will have a direct impact on labour relations in the private sector....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Who are you quoting?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Rod Mickleburgh, Vancouver Province, August 3, 1983 –– I could stop right there because what we are talking about here is the impact of this legislation on the private sector. I dealt with that at some length a while ago, but I think I should read a couple more paragraphs from this particular column. Mr. Mickleburgh goes on to say:

" 'Although a lot of the sections are merely housekeeping' — I agree — 'some changes are quite substantive,' lawyer Tom Roper told a packed Industrial Relations Management Association seminar last week. A major feature of the bill is the clause allowing collective agreements to provide conditions below the minimum requirements set out in the Employment Standards Act. In the past many unions haven't bothered to upgrade their contracts to meet these standards, because the act was there. But Bill 26 proposes that if there is a conflict between contract and legislation, the contract will prevail. 'A lot of contracts have pretty archaic language, especially in an area like maternity leave,' said Roper. 'Now that archaic language will form the substantive provision of the collective agreement.'"

I am sure the minister has read this article and knows what we are talking about.

"Another section of Bill 26 allows the director of the employment standards branch to arbitrarily cancel

[ Page 2196 ]

collective agreements once they expire upon application by an interested person. Observed Roper, 'I don't know who an interested person is, but there seems to be a real potential for conflict between that section and the whole thrust of the provincial Labour Code.'"

I'll conclude this quote and then I want to talk about this a bit.

"One section says employees wishing to appeal wage payment orders must make a deposit amounting to 10 percent of the order itself. This deposit is returned only if the order is cancelled. If the order is merely varied, the money is kept by the government."

First of all, the government has found a way to make itself a few bucks perhaps — once again, off the backs of the taxpayers. But that isn't the real problem here. It is the whole intent of this bill, as this columnist points out. The intent of this bill, of course — like Bill 2, Bill 3, and Bill 11 — is to attack the working people, the union people of this province. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this government has deliberately chosen at this time to provoke the union and working people of this province, and particularly the BCGEU. These are loyal government employees, and this government is deliberately provoking these unionized government employees who work so hard for all the people of this province. Just the intent of this type of legislation....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I am sure I am provoking you, Mr. Minister, because it's true. Before you even enter into bargaining with the public sector unions you have brought in legislation that essentially takes all their rights away — firing without cause, no end of things.

[8:15]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, but you asked me the question. I know we're on Bill 26, but you interjected across the floor. You asked me the question and I am going to answer you about deliberately provoking your employees in the BCGEU. That is exactly what you are doing when you bring in legislation before this House that takes away their rights. Bill 11, Bill 2 — that we debated — and Bill 26 are all part of the package. You are deliberately provoking these employees and you haven't even entered into bargaining with them yet. Do you know what you are doing, Mr. Minister? You are deliberately inviting these employees to take action which you are deliberately provoking because that is the kind of action this government wants. Mark my words if that isn't the case with this government.

I really feel quite strongly about this, Mr. Speaker. What government, particularly knowing that they are going into bargaining with 240,000 of their own employees who have been loyal, some of whom have been arbitrarily fired...? But I can't use that term here; they use the term "terminated." I don't know what the difference is, quite frankly. If you've been terminated, you're fired. If you're out of a job, you're out of a job. Terminated, fired or whatever, you're still out of a job. What recourse do these employees have under this legislation if and when it passes this House? I suspect that some of the back-benchers are going to vote with the opposition; I know they feel as strongly about this anti-people legislation as the opposition does, so it may not pass this House. But I don't know that yet. I think the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) is having second thoughts about Bill 26. I know he is going to get up and speak on this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you sit down, I'll get up.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, I'm not quite finished but just about.

What I am asking the government to do.... The government probably hasn't had time to consult with working people throughout the province. They need time to consult with working people and labour leaders, and with other people. They want time to listen to members of the opposition. I therefore support the motion to amend the bill by deleting out the word "now" and substituting therefore the words "on this day six months hence."

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the hoist motion is before us in order to attract some debate from the government to justify some of the things that are implicit in this bill. The question we are asking at the present time is: why has the government decided to press labour in these trying times? What we have on our hands, and the reason we are asking for a six-month hoist, is a labour movement that is most upset, suggesting very clearly that what they have before them is a group of pieces of legislation, not all applying as widely as this one.... Some apply only to the public sector, but this one applies to the whole labour movement. I would hope somebody can get up and tell me I'm wrong when I say the interpretation that I see in this bill is one that permits people to drag their feet in negotiations and let a contract go out of force; having let the contract go out of force, an interested party can apply....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: If you said that on your feet you would have to withdraw, but under the circumstances....

Mr. Speaker, we have asked the question over and over. Nobody from that side has gotten up and definitively outlined just exactly the opposite to what I am saying.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Sure you will — and close debate. What you are talking about is closing debate.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is contentious from the standpoint that that is the general interpretation put on it. Why does it suggest that a collective agreement is void.... If an application is made, the director of employment standards branch can declare a collective agreement void and apply the minimum standards. Who is an interested party? An interested party naturally could be the employer. For that matter it could be the union, although it's not very likely a union would have a negotiated contract with the basic minimum as their standard. There are some, however, some areas in this bill that worry us, and that is around the question of those not negotiated aspects.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think the member is not addressing the specific question of postponing this particular bill. He is into the principle of the bill. I think we should be debating the principle of the bill under second reading and confine this debate entirely to the

[ Page 2197 ]

principle of the amendment, which is the time the bill should be read. The member is talking about the principle instead of the time.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I'm sure the member for New Westminster is familiar with the rules of the House and will address the motion before us, which is the six-month hoist motion.

MR. COCKE: The reason for the hoist, and the reason I am suggesting that the hoist is in order and is required at this point, is that there is so much misinterpretation out there, if what the House Leader says is true. The advice we get is that the Employment Standards Amendment Act should be looked at more carefully.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

Until such time as we are satisfied, we would suggest that the Employment Standards Amendment Act be hoisted for six months and given an opportunity for input.

I ask the question: who asked for this act? Who suggested it? Does anyone ever think, when we bring in this kind of legislation, that maybe it would be an idea to have a couple of meetings with the people who are most interested? There may have been some meetings with management, but there may not have been meetings with management either. A six-month hoist would give you an opportunity to have all the meetings that you want. It will give you an opportunity to come back with a piece of legislation that is either going to be highly criticized or maybe quite highly supported. But at the present time none of these conditions has been met.

One of the problems is that this kind of bill, interpreted as it is, gives us a situation where people are very anxious. There is no reason why a government should be making people anxious. They don't have to. All they have to do is go out there and have some meetings. It would be delightful if, for a change, instead of a piece of legislation that was put together very quickly and brought into the House, some of that legislation were tested as a White Paper. The only way you can make a White Paper out of this is to hoist it. We are not alone. When labour reporters tell us that the bill hits women hard, that the bill is the private sector....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, you don't think it hits women hard? It does as far as I'm concerned. The minister will be rushing back up here and saying I'm speaking to the principle, but my interpretation is if in fact in a negotiated agreement there is no particular pregnancy clause, or this clause or that clause, that the standards apply.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't understand your technical language.

MR. COCKE: You don't understand my technical language? Then why don't you take it to the experts who can discuss it with you? This bill hits workers' rights, does it not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Which clause?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not suggesting any clause, because any time I suggest a clause I have an argument across the floor with ministers. Of course I'm not an expert on this. All I know is that it is highly criticized, and that is the reason for the hoist. As far as I am concerned there is a great deal of good reason not to trust the present incumbent within this ministry; after all the things he has said about organized labour, he expects them to trust him? He puts forward a bill like this and then wonders why we move a six-month hoist. Of course we move a six-month hoist.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I will remind both sides of the House that the hoist is a time-limit discussion and I would remind everyone to stay strictly to the motion on the floor.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, why is the minister so restless tonight? What's his problem? All we are asking him to do....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I've read the bill, my friend. That's something you haven't done.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, the bill is one that is not well accepted in most quarters. That being the case, it should be hoisted.

The minister now, without closing debate, can get up on this debate and argue all the points that he wants to argue. What he would like to do is wait until he closes debate and then it's over. This gives him and his colleagues an opportunity to get up.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Isn't it interesting. "Have you heard of committee?" "How long have you been here?" and all those kinds of trite phrases. The fact of the matter is that you have a bill that is widely criticized. That bill should be hoisted. We are not talking on the principle of it, we are talking of the lack of trust of this legislation, Mr. Speaker. Because there is a lack of trust in this legislation, that bill should be hoisted. Just pure and simple. Take it away for a week of the six months and come back and report what meetings you've had and come back and report whether or not there is a tremendously wide acceptance. I can't see a wide acceptance of this bill. I do not see it — certainly not to the extent that some of the other legislation does — divesting people of their rights, but this bill is interpreted in that way, and those people who are interpreting it that way should have their opportunity to communicate their concerns to the minister. Is that much to ask? Is that a big deal? No, it is not. The minister knows that. The House Leader knows that. They all know that. It is not a big deal. The fact of the matter is that I won't even suggest that he should vote for the hoist, because that would be a confidence motion and so they couldn't, possibly.

[8:30]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The second time today I've suggested...or today or yesterday, anyway. I get times mixed up. You were away in Newfoundland rowing a dory....

[ Page 2198 ]

AN HON. MEMBER; Want me to tell you about it?

MR. COCKE: Yes, I wish you would.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down. I'll tell you all about it.

MR. COCKE: Okay, you'll get your chance in just a few minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then everything will be hunky-dory.

MR. COCKE: I hope you had a happy time.

It is conceivable, as I see it, that we could take this bill away from this place for a short period of time and give it an opportunity to be assessed outside the chamber. There are very few people on either side of the House who are experts on this kind of legislation. We have seen, over the years, legislation of this sort — not necessarily this exact legislation, but this sort — creating a tremendous amount of distrust, and following the distrust naturally comes unrest, a shock to our economy and so on and so forth. I think it is fair enough to say to the "interested parties" before we get into this, before this is proclaimed: "Here is an opportunity for you to give us your opinion. Why don't we have those kinds of discussions?" I have yet to hear of one. I have heard of the minister going to chambers of commerce and places like that — not discussing this particularly but suggesting what he has in mind for labour. That creates a fair amount of unrest. Then when that same minister says to me, "trust us," or words to that effect, I say: why not have it looked at thoroughly? It needs to be looked at thoroughly.

I'm not the one who says that particularly. Why does Rod Mickleburgh say that? Why does Michael Bocking say that? The people who seem to make it their career to report on labour matters say that it is a rough bill. Mickleburgh says the private sector is hit by Bill 26. I say hoist it. Why would that be so much to ask? Why would it be so much to ask if at least the minister can stand up tonight, tell us who he has met with and what their position was with respect to this bill? If he can do that maybe we'll vote against our own motion. Until such time as we have some sort of assurance that the bill does what he says and that it is benign, naturally we are going to ask that it be hoisted.

We also wonder, as part of this whole question, why it is that we are disbanding the board. Why isn't that being discussed? It strikes me that it is being taken right back into the Labour ministry under a branch, if I read the bill correctly. It is going to be a branch. So that branch will be under the direct control of the Ministry of Labour. More centralization. Again, it's a worry, because that is part of the pattern. Wouldn't you agree? The pattern is that only decisions that are made right here in this cocoon, in this ivory tower — and I'm not talking about this chamber.... I'm sure not talking about this chamber, because this chamber is looked down upon by that government. That government has had no capacity whatsoever to plan to bail our economy out, to get us anywhere, and then they ask us to divest more of the responsibility directly through the minister to the branch.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) says I am abusing the chamber. That is his interpretation. I have been here a long time. I remember you in opposition. You talk about my abuse. Heavenly days! I don't consider this abuse. I am asking questions. I am making suggestions. I am not putting myself down as an expert, as so many over there seem to be. Yet we are in so much trouble. I don't know where all your expertise is, but it sure isn't in these areas. The bill should be hoisted as a result of the very things that I am talking about. He says it is fine but, Mr. Speaker, nobody else agrees.

If he would, just for fun, tell us why there are some words in there that say.... We are told this is very contentious — the section of the bill that states that parts of the act do not apply where a collective agreement is in effect and that the director of employment standards can declare a collective agreement void and apply the minimum standards if he is approached by an interested party to do so, after an appropriate time has passed. Now what does that mean? In my head it means that it should be hoisted because it means that it will reduce the motivation to negotiate for a collective agreement. Who wants to negotiate a collective agreement if it is going to be handed to you — and not only that, handed to you in such a way as to be below the standard of a normal collective agreement? That's what we are told. Prove that we are wrong. Show us that there has been some kind of discussion. Show us where that discussion took place. Tell us where the support is for this particular legislation, outside of some corporations. I don't see it. I haven't heard it. I don't see why, if I haven't heard it, a great many other people have. All I know is that this bill is looked upon as a bill that should be pulled.

Just let me give you a couple of quotes that will give you a feeling why it should be pulled. Would you suggest that a bill should not be hoisted if these words were said about it?

"Thousands of employees may find they do not enjoy the rights they thought they had when the provincial government implements the amendments to the Employment Standards Act. Currently the act serves as a minimum standard of wages and work conditions that applies to a union and non-union workers.

"The Social Credit government intends to change the act so that sections covering wages, vacations, maternity leave and layoff or termination procedures do not apply to union members if they already have provisions in their contracts governing these issues. The change significantly affects many agreements, because labour and management negotiators bargained on the understanding that no contract could undermine the minimum standards of the act."

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I wouldn't stake my seat on anything, although if you want to run against me, I guess I would do it.

"'Before, they (labour contracts and the act) interlocked and gave combined protection,' said labour lawyer Leo McGrady. 'People have bargained on the basis that the Employment Standards Act served as a minimum. So many agreements have rather weak language in some areas, because they figured the act served as a minimum.'"

Is there anything wrong about that?

"McGrady said that there are likely many agreements, covering thousands of employees, that will be affected by the changes. While most unions have

[ Page 2199 ]

better wages, vacation and overtime provisions in their contracts than are provided under the act, there are many that could be quite weak in the areas of maternity leave and termination or layoff procedures.

"'Women are going to be hit hardest,' McGrady said."

Those are the kinds of words that suggest to me that the act should be looked at carefully. We certainly can't support it in its present form until such time as the assurances that the minister hints at across the floor are there. What is the requirement for this act? What is the urgency about it?

It came in suddenly after an election as part of a package. Most of the package leaves a lot to be desired. When we get the kinds of criticisms that we have seen on this bill, naturally we're motivated to say, "hoist it." We're motivated to say: "Have a discussion out there. See where your support is." We don't see it at all. I have listened for some long time to CBC and read in theVancouver Province a labour reporter by the name of Mickleburgh. What does he say? He says: "There are a lot of sleepers, besides the knockout punch that permits firing without cause, in the legislative gauntlet tossed down by the provincial government. One of them, the Employment Standards Amendment Act, Bill 26, will have a direct impact on labour relations in the private sector." That's what he says.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: You guys make me cry — really and truly.

"'Although a lot of sections are merely housekeeping, some changes are quite substantive,' lawyer Tom Roper" — this is another lawyer — "told a packed Industrial Relations Management Association seminar last week. A major feature of the bill is a clause allowing collective agreements to provide conditions below the minimum requirements set out in the Employment Standards Act. In the past........ .. Then he goes on to talk about how the negotiations have sometimes overlooked these things in the past. There is another part of the bill, he says, in which the director of the employment standards branch can "arbitrarily cancel collective agreements once they expire, upon application by 'an interested person.'"

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right. I said it.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that that is our argument for wanting the bill hoisted. Our argument is that it should be properly discussed. Labour-management relations is so sensitive an area that it would be very advisable for a government not necessarily to have the words as they appear in the bill but at least to have the direction that the government is going out there and discussed with interested parties — both labour and management. Why not? What is the hurry? This is part of the restraint package, we read. Yet there is nothing restrained about this. All it is is just more centralization, as I see it.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It's not? Read the bill. What does it do? It knocks off the labour standards board and takes all their power and gives it to the branch, which is directly in the Ministry of Labour. If that isn't centralization....

Interjection.

[8:45]

MR. COCKE: The board is at least separate from that standpoint, isn't it? If it isn't, it should be.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, no. It is a change. To the minister: why don't you get up and debate it when I'm finished? Will you? Thank you. It would be a refreshing change from sitting in your seat, barking along, wasting my time and yours.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What's wrong with me quoting from newspaper articles?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's a possibility. You lived with a lot of my original thoughts when you became Minister of Health after I left. That's right — a province-wide ambulance service that you try to take credit for and all sorts of other nice little goodies. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I'll get on with the bill. That insulting minister doesn't really put me down — I don't mind what he says because I have very little respect for that kind of talk.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: My point is this: the bill, in many of its parts, is not being accepted as being something that is going to improve labour relations in our province. As I say, I am not an authority, but what is being said about it is that it will reduce the level of labour-management situation. It will make us go back to a greater lack of trust. I just observe that that's the way it is seen.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in 1981 there were 145 of 146 decisions handed down by the board that were related to payment of back wages owed, and 162 of 175 decisions during the first nine months of 1982 were related to back wages. We are not positive about this, but we hear that the officials in the employment standards branch were not informed of the act until it was introduced in the Legislature. The people working for the board were not even aware that there were going to be changes. It's not only on the outside that labour-management people, in my opinion, were not properly canvassed, but even within the board they weren't properly canvassed. They woke up one morning finding that a bill marked "26" was part of the "restraint" package.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you consult management when you passed the Labour Code?

MR. COCKE: They certainly were consulted, and plenty. You people should follow the pattern of the NDP government, which set up the best labour-management statute in North America.

[ Page 2200 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I will remind you all that the debate must be strictly confined to the object of the motion. While you haven't been straying that far, I thought it would be wise to advise you.

MR. COCKE: The minister has given me a marvellous opportunity to say: why don't they do what we did?

MR. REE: Oh, heaven help us!

MR. COCKE: Heaven help you? This province is so much richer as a result of the labour legislation that we brought in. It is acknowledged all over....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's reason for a hoist; that is reason to do exactly what I am saying. That is reason to consult. What we are talking about is consultation, and they know it. That consultation did take place and when that legislation came in, it was fair, it was even-handed, it favoured neither labour nor management. It was a first-class piece of legislation. This could very well be an improvement. If there is room for improving this, why don't we do it? It has had too much criticism to just push it through. What's the rush? There is no great urgency about this. There may be some urgency about some other legislation that they have before them, but there is certainly no great rush on this particular piece of legislation.

The fact that it has been before us for three months does not suggest that there has been consultation. We know that there was no consultation beforehand, and what we are asking for now is consultation after the fact. Is that too much to ask?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. COCKE: That is too much to ask, they say. Press on. Let's have it pushed through just like everything else. Let's steamroller this legislation through, and then everybody is going to be happy.

I suggest that this new amendment should have the opportunity that any good piece of legislation has — that is, an opportunity to be canvassed first, not after. There are even small changes in wording in this act that could very well be looked at. We see labour lawyers suggesting that this amendment has some problems around it. Why not have discussions outside the present Labour ministry?

The questions about temporary layoff are something that should be canvassed. The question about employee compensation for financial loss and damage is an area that I think should be canvassed. These are areas that can be canvassed if, in fact, we take this legislation and hoist it — nothing more and nothing less. We are not asking for a great deal; all we are doing is suggesting that it should be done.

The minister has as much as admitted that there has been no consultation, and, as a matter of fact, there was little or no consultation within his own branch when this piece of legislation was dreamed up. Can we therefore ask that the concerns that are being expressed be given an opportunity to be canvassed? That's all. Just give us the six-month hoist, or if you don't wish to vote for it, announce that you don't want a six-month hoist, but announce that this bill will be held up until such time as there has been the consultation that we are asking for. It is not going to take long. The minister isn't that busy.

Some of them are rushing off to far-flung places, but at the present time I haven't noticed that he is. I know he is very busy as chairman of his particular economic council and all the rest of it, but that doesn't mean a great deal when it comes to something that's going into the statute books of this province and will be there for some time to come. There is no sunset clause in this bill. There's nothing in it that tells us it will go out of force in a certain length of time. This is a statute and will continue to be a statute. If it's creating distrust now, how will it be when it finally becomes a statute when it's proclaimed? Then when it's found to be weak or wanting, it's too late. There's a certain psychology about government: it's etched in stone once it becomes a statute; they can do no wrong. It would be an admission of failure. There's no admission of failure if you ask your questions first. The only failure is if you don't ask the questions first when you have the opportunity.

The minister has an opportunity to ask those questions right now. He has an opportunity to report back to the House, to tell us exactly where he stands in terms of the consultation he has had. Is that asking too much, Mr. Speaker? I don't think so. I'll afford the minister an opportunity to make the suggestion as to what he intends to do. If he intends to soldier right along, well, we're here. We've seen it happen before, and we hope he's not going to do that. We hope he'll be sufficiently realistic to agree with us; that he will pull back at least to the extent of consultation and will reassure those people out there, including labour reporters, labour lawyers and other experts who say that the bill is not good, that it's a backward step. Why should we take a backward step when we can take a forward step? Is there any particular reason for that? I don't see it. I'm quite happy to sit here and take notes while the minister tells about all the glories of this bill and why it shouldn't be hoisted.

MR. NICOLSON: This would appear to be another plank in the government's war on prosperity. One thing that can be honestly said for this Social Credit government is that it has wrestled prosperity to the ground here in British Columbia. It is a carefully laid-out plan that was set, I suppose, some four years ago. Just as Lyndon Johnson took on a war on poverty, this government has taken on the war on prosperity in British Columbia, and I would say they have been very successful in that respect.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the ex-President of the United States has little to do with this bill or the concept of the six-month hoist.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken. The Chair will remind all members, as it did the previous speaker, that the debate must be strictly confined to the object of the motion.

[9:00]

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, they're going to keep going all night long with this kind of intimidation. The member was developing an argument for the reason to hoist, and you know it.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know?

MR. COCKE: I can tell; if you can't, that's your tough luck. Mr. Speaker, he should be given an opportunity beyond

[ Page 2201 ]

three sentences to develop his arguments, without intimidation from that House Leader who is such an expert on everything.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let us proceed beyond that point to the member for Nelson-Creston. To the motion.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, it appears that I've touched a little bit of a nerve. Perhaps this describes exactly what this government is up to: a war against prosperity.

What was wrong with this province the way it was four years ago? Why did you have to set about to deliberately wreck things; that's precisely what this is doing. If there is a six-month hoist, I would propose that people from labour as well as from the Employers' Council and other responsible employers, who have a great deal more at stake than some of you, in terms of your so-called elevated positions — particularly of your own importance.... Those of you who may have forgotten where you came from and what you might have been seem to have suddenly taken on the mantle of authority and to have taken yourself a little too seriously. Have dialogue with some of the people who have a real stake in British Columbia, whether they be employers or employees, retired people who are concerned about all the work they have put into this province over many years, and would be very sad to see it destroyed by this government in its unrelenting war on prosperity. That's what we can get from a six-month hoist: some kind of a respite or a truce. This would be a cease-fire in the war waged on the people of British Columbia by this provincial government, this unrelenting war in which the people have had no peace and have been given no hope. This government continues to preach the politics of despair in this particular war.

If the government were to look upon this bill more as a White Paper, then I presume it could serve a very good and useful purpose. If this bill were a White Paper about which discussion could take place over the next few years, or even six months, then the bill could be reintroduced and appropriate amendments brought in.

I've heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom) say: "Read the bill." This bill does provide that where a collective agreement expires and where the undefined interested party decides to apply, the terms of the collective agreement can be set aside. It's rather interesting that both the Vancouver Sun labour reporter and the Vancouver Province labour reporter come up with the same observations about this bill. Experts such as labour lawyers Leo McGrady and Tom Roper, and Colin Kelly of the Independent Canadian Transit Union are coming up with the same kinds of decisions. There seems to be a great deal of concern in the community, When Mr. Roper made his comments he wasn't making them just on the basis of an interview. He had addressed a packed audience at an Industrial Relations Management Association seminar. The Industrial Relations Management Association is not a branch of the B.C. Federation of Labour. These are honestly held concerns in the community, and it is honestly held that a bill like Bill 26 could do much to dismantle, disrupt and destroy the labour climate of this province.

One has only to listen to many of the interjections constantly being made — and that are constantly out of order — to realize that the worst fears of hard-working British Columbians, whether they be in labour or management, are being realized in this legislation. Also, where there is mention of such things as hours of work, overtime and special apparel in a collective agreement then it is being enforced by this: that those standards will apply even if they are less than the standards minimum standards in the act. Yet we have heard interjections from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) — and I've heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs — saying: "No, that's not so. Read the bill. Read the bill." Mr. Speaker, I've read that part of the bill. Rod Mickleburgh, Michael Bocking, Tom Roper, Leo McGrady and Colin Kelly have read that part of the bill, as I'm sure a great number of other people in this province have read that part of the bill. I'm sure Don Lanskail has read the bill. People like Bill Hamilton and probably Jim Matkin have read that part of the bill, and I can't imagine....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What did Don Lanskail say about it?

MR. NICOLSON: I've known Don Lanskail for over 25 years, and I can't believe, knowing his background, that he would not be concerned about the tenor and implications of this particular piece of legislation. He is consistently a person who believes in the collective bargaining process. He believes in a good labour management climate. If he has looked at this piece of legislation. I can't believe he would subscribe to the parts contained in section 2. Certainly I would think that if there were some time — six months — and if this were considered a White Paper instead of the law of the land, which we in this government should....

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I will enlarge upon what I said the other night. There is a need for this government to send out a message. There is a need for this government to change its style from confrontation. There could be no surer signal of this than if this government were to call upon some of the retired people from political life, people who have a reputation for fairness and have built themselves a reputation above and beyond their political careers. If the government were to prevail upon people the likes of Bill King, for whom I've heard a goodly number of Social Credit....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: It would show how far out of touch you might be even with your own party. If I had a dollar for every Social Crediter who has come to me since the last election and told me what a shame it is that the House lost a man the calibre of Bill King, I would be pretty rich.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, there's the minister's attitude. He says: "Good riddance." He says good riddance to a person of that calibre. Mr. Speaker, you have a person who, in the pioneer days of this government, would have been described as a renegade; nothing better and nothing worse.

If this government would show a little bit of smarts.... I almost throw out these good ideas because I'm sure this government is too stubborn to accept them. It

[ Page 2202 ]

wouldn't be in my best interests if they were to accept a constructive proposal such as I am making, but I'm going to make it anyhow. The government could prevail upon people like Gordon Gibson, who also enjoys the confidence of most people. A person such as Scott Wallace and maybe Cyril Shelford. Three or four people who are held in high esteem by the people of British Columbia, people who have built reputations that go above and beyond partisan politics in this province. But no, the minister sits there and interjects.

It's very curious. It seems that every time someone on this side strays slightly from the strict confines of a motion, they are brought to order. But I have been listening to mindless interjections from the other side, and from behind. I've heard people doing bird imitations this evening, Mr. Speaker. Maybe it is getting to some hon. members. Maybe they've been eating bird seed; I don't know. Whatever has been happening, it's rather curious the way in which the debate tends to go.

If the government would take a bill such as this....

Bill 26 is considered to be a very contentious bill. If the government really wants to govern British Columbia instead of rule, if the government really wants to change the style and is really serious about seeing economic recovery in British Columbia rather than chaos, they should heed the warning. I think they should take some advice when it is being offered in the best spirit. There should be dialogue. There should be an opportunity for witnesses to be called and heard. I'm sure a great number of British Columbians would be willing to be heard on this particular issue. I believe such a small commission could meet quickly at minimal expense throughout the province.

How would British Columbia benefit? We would benefit by backing off from the confrontational stance we're in today, where the government is at war with a huge percentage of the population, where you have a group called Solidarity....

I'm not a member of Solidarity. Not every member of the NDP is a member of Solidarity, and not every member of Solidarity is a member of the NDR It is a group of people looking for some kind of positive response from government. With the exception of a couple of incidents which I wouldn't support — and even those were rather minor, but a couple I could take issue with — they have conducted themselves in a most restrained and responsible manner. It is time for the government to respond in kind with people of the calibre of Bill King, Gordon Gibson, Scott Wallace and Cyril Shelford — people with experience. Long after the current Minister of Labour has been forgotten, these people will be remembered as people who made a political contribution.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I rise on a point of order under standing order 43 — tedious and repetitious debate. I believe that Hansard will show that this member is basically giving the same speech he gave in second reading on this bill and is repeating some of the comments that were made by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke).

MR. NICOLSON: That's an absolute lie. It is not the same speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. NICOLSON: Absolute fabrication.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There was an unparliamentary term used, and I will ask the hon. member to withdraw.

MR. NICOLSON: I withdraw any unparliamentary terms without equivocation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The term is withdrawn. Thank you. I shall remind all hon. members that we should be relevant to the motion before us, which is a hoist motion.

MR. NICOLSON: I am not proposing that we have a hoist and do nothing for six months. I am proposing that we do something, that we take some positive action rather than a negative action, rather than this negative energy, and just look at the energy that this government is putting into this particular piece of confrontation. It would be an opportunity for us to maybe find out where this came from. Perhaps Mr. Michael Walker and Mr. Block from the Fraser Institute could come and be heard, and maybe we would find that they were the source of this piece of legislation. We might find that something was lost in translation, that something else was intended. Maybe the kind of advice that Mr. Walker and the Fraser Institute gave to the government — and we all know that they gave advice to the government.... We might, by asking the deputy minister and the legislative draftsmen, by talking with the various unions and various management people, find out what has happened.

[9:15]

It is really interesting when one reads the bill, the criticism of the bill in the media and our analysis of it. The government says that it does not do some of these things. I would like to find out if this bill does not reduce hours of work, overtime and special apparel, if it does not reduce annual vacations or vacation pay, termination of employment or layoff, maternity or pregnancy leave, if it does not reduce these to the minimum standards. That is my interpretation, Mr. Speaker, as opposed to what appears to be the interpretation of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland). I would like to know if it wouldn't be possible to put this in clear language, because if what they are saying is that maximum standards apply, I absolutely cannot understand, for instance, section 2, which is one of the major provisions of the act. In fact, section 2 is one of the very lengthy and very interesting departures, as most people would see this particular piece of legislation.

I would like to see some of the labour organizations.... You know, we can't ask for legal interpretations in this House, but a commission could certainly hear lawyers who, I am sure, would be put forward by the various labour organizations. I am sure the IWA would appear, I am sure the Steelworkers would appear, and on top of that the B.C. Federation of Labour would probably appear. Other, nonaffiliated organizations, organizations that represent groups in which there are a large number of women, might appear. This piece of legislation does, for instance, very much affect women, if the maternity and pregnancy leave provisions of the act are as I read them — that is, where there is a collective agreement and that collective agreement has relied upon the provisions of the Employment Standards Act for years and years, if that collective agreement has been neglected and now, when there really is no great climate to go and put in new provisions and upgrade provisions.... What this is saying is that if there is a slipshod old provision that had previously

[ Page 2203 ]

been superseded by the Employment Standards Act, now that slipshod provision in the collective agreement is the one that applies. I don't hear the minister telling me I am wrong on that. Maybe I have interpreted the bill correctly. If I have interpreted the bill correctly — and I think I have; maybe the minister's silence indicates that I have — then the need for this commission is the need to introduce....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister is going to follow on this amendment? Okay, that is great. Then there is a need to introduce some new mechanism whereby we can get more of a dialogue with the total community.

It's not unusual that collective agreements run out. One of the examples that was cited is the Independent Canadian Transit Union, which represents bus drivers in the lower mainland. At the time that this article was written, not too long ago, they had been without a collective agreement since March 31. Another part of this is that by the wording of this act an interested party could apply to have the collective agreement set aside, and then all of the other provisions of this act — I assume even minimum wage, $3.65 an hour — would apply. Hours of work, overtime rates, various other things could apply because, if a collective agreement were set aside after a reasonable time had expired — whatever that is — and after an interested party — whoever that is — applied to have the collective agreement set aside, then the employees, if they chose not to be on strike, might have to subsist on the provisions of minimum standards.

Mr. Speaker, this approach would clearly not be in the best interests of the New Democratic Party, I suppose, if the government continues its confrontation with the people, that would be in the interests of the New Democratic Party. But in the interests of British Columbia, right now is definitely the time for a change, for a signal to go out. Every day the editorial pages are calling for the government to change its stance, its posture. I don't know what the government has to gain by this posture. If it was back when the balance in the House was a little closer — when it was 31-26 — I could see it. You had to prove that you were tough and in control, and things were pretty tough then. But now you've got a nice comfortable majority. You don't have to prove yourselves, so that this accepting a hoist, going to the people, a pause.... Who asked for this in the first place? Where did the request come from? That is one of the questions, I think, that would have to be answered. Was it just the meeting with Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute? Or is it Michael Fraser of the Walker Institute? It doesn't really matter too much.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Why are you picking on the poor man?

MR. NICOLSON: Why am I picking on him? Well, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't want to pick on Michael Walker. He's an economist. He sure isn't much of a writer, but apparently he's an economist.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I thought you had a little bit of expertise in economics.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, I don't pretend to have expertise in economics. I take good advice from good people, successful people in the private sector, but I don't have to pretend.... No, I leave it to one or two of my colleagues to dabble in economics. After all, I'm a scientist. I don't believe in pseudo-sciences. I believe in things like F'ma and you can't push on a rope. Isn't that right, Russ?

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, that's even a little.... But those are two incontrovertible facts.

But, Mr. Speaker, where is the need? Is this the cure for which there is no disease? If it is, then can we afford to dabble with that? We might be letting some microbes out of a test-tube that could create some very serious biological warfare on the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm a schoolteacher; I can put my hands in my pocket. That's a privilege. You have privileges as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, and you get certain privileges as a schoolteacher, one of which is to put your hands in your coat pockets — not in your pants pockets, but in your coat pockets.

This bill particularly — and I won't reflect on other bills or other votes — when looked at in conjunction with other bills, is an extremely bad signal to the people of British Columbia. This motion to hoist could become a positive signal. Just imagine if this government, after these long sittings of the past week or two, were to switch around, Imagine the editorials and the commentary. We in the official opposition would really be in trouble, but you people could make yourselves look so good. You could rebound so well because there is tremendous elasticity there and you could look very, very good. It only takes the courage to step back a little bit and look at what can be gained and get your motivation from seeing things accomplished for this province.

We have had enough despair in this province and we've had enough depression in this province. It is time to involve the people in British Columbia in the only way in which we can involve them: by looking at this a second time. This bill is not just with pitfalls if we leave it this way.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the House and the Chair itself has been very forgiving with respect to the repetition. I recognize that the member opposite has said that he thinks we should hoist so we can consult with certain numbers of people. But now that that is said and now that the repetition is taking place, I think it would be fair if the Chair would advise the member to go on to some new reason to hoist or to take his place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Nelson-Creston continues. I'm sure he can advance new arguments.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think you should give serious consideration to what is being said — that any member can't get up and participate in this debate. This idea that someone else said it or that you must have new ideas is not a valid argument. I know there is an attempt to set up a reason for closure, but each member in this House has a right to enter into the debate and take the

[ Page 2204 ]

appropriate time to establish his argument. These continuing interruptions accusing members of repetition are garbage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One more point of order, then I think we will continue with the member.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I speak on standing order 43 — tedious and repetitious debate. It has been said in this House that the role of the opposition is to oppose and the members on the government side appreciate hearing the points of view of the members opposite. But when you hear the same points being raised time and time again and the hours pass in this House, members on this side feel it is only right and proper to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, standing order 43 and ask that you bring the member to order and advise him that if he has nothing to say, he should sit down in his place to allow other members of the opposition to rise, as the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew requests, so they can stand up and make their points known. But tedious and repetitious debate is one of the things that we don't need in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The Chair has considered all the points of order. I'm sure the member for Nelson-Creston will be advancing new arguments, as he seems to have done throughout the majority of his speech so far. I will also remind the hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew that it is a member's prerogative to speak in the House, and it's also a member's prerogative to rise on points of order.

[9:30]

MR. NICOLSON: As I have said, this isn't a one-sided bill. It creates other burdens on employers. Rod Mickleburgh pointed out one of these burdens. In one section it says that "employers wishing to appeal wage payment orders must make a deposit amounting to 10 percent of the ordered sum and the deposit is returned only if the order is cancelled. If the order is merely varied the money is kept by the government." How did that slip in there? I think that we should know that these things do slip into legislation, that sometimes legislative draughtsmen are over-exuberant or perhaps sometimes the bureaucracy is over-exuberant. I think the people who have to deal with that kind of a regulation.... I'm sure that labour would like to see the 10 percent deposit but I doubt that they would insist that if the order is merely varied somewhat the money would be confiscated by the government. In fact, I think that what labour would like to see here is a strengthening of the position of employees in the matters of nonpayment of wages. I know that there have been some very difficult problems, and perhaps a lot of that could come out, too. Maybe there are some fresh insights into what can be done about non-payment of wages. Maybe there are other remedies, other ways of securing.... In most cases, the banks end up in first place, then other creditors and workers who have actually.... I don't really know why banks should be in front of people who have actually put in a tremendous amount of time. The courts....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: The Bankruptcy Act. The courts have ordered this. I know that there have been attempts at provincial legislation that have been overturned in the courts. By opening up this whole area for discussion, instead of just wringing our hands and saying nothing can be done because of the Bankruptcy Act, we could look at forms of action in which we could draw attention and really evaluate the morality of the Bankruptcy Act and if risk capital or labour are all that much different. I recognize the rights of both: the rights of the worker who has put work into a business and is not being paid out, and the property rights of the person who has invested capital and is not being paid out. Surely it couldn't hurt to look at this with fresh insight and look at the impact on the people who are not paid wages. Who is the most guilty? Is it the worker who continues working, or is it the bank that continues a very bad situation right down to the point where they know that there's just enough in there for themselves? They leave not only the workers, whom this bill really deals with, in a bad position, but they also leave a lot of the smaller unsecured creditors in bad straits. Anybody who knows a little bit about the Bankruptcy Act — and I'm sure that most of us in the Legislature know a bit about it.... Certainly I have had a bit of a crash course in it in the last two or three years in trying to assist some of the people in my riding. We know the troubles and difficulties there.

We know that this whole area of employment standards, of non-payment of wages, maternity leaves and many, many other things are very important. For the majority of the workers in British Columbia, these are the standards. There's tremendous confusion. The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) says that we haven't read or don't understand the bill. If we don't understand the bill then neither do the two major labour reporters in the print media. Several professional labour lawyers apparently don't understand the bill. Some people in management and industrial relations don't understand the bill, Mr. Speaker, it could just be that the bill is something that is setting a law that the government didn't intend. I would hope to believe that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your attention. I would hope, though, that the government would look for some new ground in terms of their legislative programs and consult with people in terms of their legislative programs. You did this a few times in the past. Maybe that's why you are sitting over there today; if you continue on this particular bent, you might find yourselves over here. I would be very pleased to see that, but not at the expense of the destruction of the labour relations climate and, consequently, the economy of British Columbia. We've got a lot of very touchy situations going on out there right now. There are many, many agreements that have expired. The limate is not good: it's not healthy for labour, for management or for British Columbia. I would hope that you will support a six-month hoist of this bill.

MR. HANSON: I move to support the hoist to set this bill aside for six months. This bill does nothing to improve industrial relations in British Columbia or to move us ahead in many key areas, like working rights with respect to women, occupational health and safety and all kinds of modern, progressive workplace negotiations which could take place to create a more solid and better industrial relations in British Columbia. This bill undermines the workplace of the workers, particularly women, and those people who have enjoyed or relied upon certain standards that were assumed to be covered under the employment standards. Rather than having a basement on certain kinds of provisions covering vacation, wages, maternity leave, health and safety — other kinds of vital collective aspects of life in the workplace — we have a removal of the basement — the standards — so that

[ Page 2205 ]

negotiations can take place to downgrade all of those standards. Many collective agreements have relied upon language in the act; as a result they didn't continue, as negotiations proceeded, to upgrade and modernize their language with respect to maternity leave and so on. They always assumed those baseline standards were placed there by the provincial government to ensure some basic standard and equity of protection for all workers in all collective agreements, and so on.

Many trade union leaders — transit unions and others — have indicated that employers feel they are getting a signal from this government to roll back basic standards in certain areas and to renegotiate downwards standards and protections that should be in place for all workers in the province. Rather than doing what should have been done.... A bipartisan committee of this Legislature should have travelled this province to listen to submissions from workers' organizations, from all sorts of groups on workers' rights with respect to women — all the problems that arise from the fact that because women continue the species they leave the workplace to raise children; the difficulties they experience in again assuming their job with a company, all the aspects of child care and protection and so on. A committee of this House should have travelled this province and listened to the concerns of working people in a variety of work environments, and put together a piece of legislation progressive in nature that would have addressed the real concerns in 1983-84, and for the decades to come.

There is an attitude by this government that comes from people who don't understand working people, who don't understand at all the ordinary working person and the kinds of situations they confront.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: You've had lots of jobs? You don't get a lot of experience, Mr. Minister, living in the Hotel Vancouver at taxpayers' expense.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's entirely relevant to point out that people who are insulated on the thirteenth or fourteenth floor of the Hotel Vancouver for a hundred days a year....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: It's closer to a hundred.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, it probably is.

MR. HANSON: Yes, that's right. Isn't it incredible that a greater Vancouver MLA has to live in downtown Vancouver at the taxpayers' expense on per diems....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not germane to the amendment before us. To the hoist, please.

MR. HANSON: I'm saying that if this minister played any role in drafting this legislation, then it has all the earmarks of the twelfth floor of the Hotel Vancouver on per diems, when he should be residing in his riding....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the hoist, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wouldn't have raised this at this point, except that that member has brought it into this debate. I'd advise him to check the Constitution Act and find out where the official residence of a cabinet minister is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps if the member would continue in order on the principle of the hoist motion we wouldn't have these problems to begin with, and I so advise the member.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Is it sleazy to spend taxpayers' money on living in hotels? Why should we pay for it? Why should the working people of this province pay for it?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Where are you supposed to live, you creep — in the street?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Labour will withdraw the reference to the first member for Victoria.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of the traditions of the House, I would withdraw that remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The first member for Victoria will confine his remarks to the principle of the hoist amendment before us or will discontinue his speech.

[9:45]

MR. HANSON: I am pointing out to the government, Mr. Speaker, the wisdom of moving this bill aside for six months. It hurts women, it hurts the people that are least able to defend themselves because now this bill will rule null and void many provisions of protection in the workplace that previously existed by the employment standards that were in place to provide baseline standards on vacations, occupational health and safety, on women's rights, wages, layoff and termination procedures. This bill centralizes power, which previously existed in a board that had labour representation, some trade union and working people representation, to a director who will have enormous powers of discretion and authority. It will centralize decision-making, which is the tradition of this government. That is the insensitivity that I am alluding to. The cabinet that oversaw the draughting and brought this bill before the House clearly does not understand or respect or want to achieve better working conditions for the ordinary working person of this province.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order. It seems pretty clear to me — I don't know about you — that that member is speaking to the principle of the bill, which is better addressed at second reading rather than on the amendment which is before the House at the present time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is extremely well taken. We have an amendment to hoist which clearly indicates a feeling of delay and not to the principle of the bill itself. I am sure the member can continue on the principle of hoist.

MR. HANSON: We hope that the government will accept the hoist motion, will set this bill aside, will go to the people

[ Page 2206 ]

concerned, will go to the various bargaining units and bargaining agents and employers' organizations around this province. Even the board was not advised. This bill was ill drafted and ill conceived. All I can conclude is that it is a direct attack on the organized workers of this province.

There is a quotation here in the clippings that I have of a remark from a new member in this House for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), who says that the Labour Standards Act, which this bill will replace, which outlines basic hours and conditions for workers in B.C., is "superimposing conditions and constraints on employers and employees with collective agreements." It is a perfect example of government interference in free trade unions and in the private sector. What that member does not realize is that unless there are some baseline standards in protection, in occupational health and safety, in maternity leave, in vacations, in layoff and recall, in seniority provisions, in bargaining rights, backed up by the recognition and respect of the state that there will be advantage taken of small bargaining units that are unable to protect themselves.... That is the wisdom of setting this aside, so that the government would understand that basic fact. Arbitrators and people who are active and well aware and educated in industrial relations clearly have stated that this is the wrong way to go.

When we look at other jurisdictions that have low incidences of job loss and so on as a result of disputes, it is clear that the course the government has taken is to inflame and confront the working people of the province, which is going to result in destabilizing our economy. It is clearly going to result in a large number of days lost in the workplace if the government proceeds on its present course. Why they will not accept such a simple motion to set a bill aside which is so fundamental to industrial life in our province and to the stability of our economy is really beyond me. The only thing I can conclude is the lifestyle of the cabinet ministers and the access to government jets....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I have advised the member that he will speak on this principle or discontinue his speech.

MR. HANSON: That minister has used the government jet 140 times.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can continue on the hoist principle or discontinue. The choice is yours. You have some time left.

MR. HANSON: There are some people that can understand the impact of legislation. It draws from their own circumstances and their own experience and their own sensitivity about their life and about the people that are around them. Oftentimes in this House we see bills such as this that indicate a lack of understanding, a desensitization, a sense of being insulated by luxury and circumstances and excess to circumstances that the ordinary working person could only dream about. Most of the working people who are affected by this bill have never, ever lived in the Hotel Vancouver.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is the second time I've advised you to speak to the hoist principle and avoid any references to things that are not contained in this bill or to the principle of the hoist. I think you would be well advised to listen to my advice, because it will be the last time I will advise you. You can proceed or you can discontinue your speech. The choice is yours.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, on your point, why is it that when I mention the Hotel Vancouver you immediately lurch to the microphone? What is wrong with mentioning the Hotel Vancouver?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are speaking to a hoist motion on a bill. The member has made personal references to other ministers which are not contained in this bill or in the principle of the hoist. Speak to the principle of the hoist and you'll be in order.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill is about working conditions. It is about the life in the workplace. The life in the workplace of a cabinet minister is different than of an ordinary citizen. That particular experience isolates that cabinet minister from understanding the impact of this legislation. The working conditions....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: We haven't had a chance to look at your vouchers yet.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: We will, if we're not sitting 24 hours a day.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Are you afraid of work?

MR. HANSON: I'm not afraid of work at all.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: If you want to yap for 24 hours a day, say something.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Forests will come to order. I will advise the member now in his place in debate to speak to the principle of a hoist motion.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know why they're so sensitive. They're so thin-skinned.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! To the hoist, please.

MR. HANSON: As I read the various research notes and clippings from newspaper articles in analysis of this bill, I see that there's considerable concern in the community about the impact of the bill. Mr. Speaker, if you will indulge me in making a specific reference to, for example, the maternity leave provisions, which are clearly affected, I will....

Let me take another example. In the current act there is a clear recognition that an ordinary working person under a collective agreement has a certain entitlement of vacation pay. The vacation pay for holidays — I shouldn't say vacation, because vacation generally means two weeks or three weeks of annual vacation, increasing with the amount of service invested by an employee with a firm.... But in this case, under the present law that this law will replace, there is a recognition that at present "general holiday" in the act includes New Year's Day, Good Friday, Victoria Day, Dominion Day, B.C. Day, Labour Day, Thanksgiving, Remembrance Day and

[ Page 2207 ]

Christmas Day. There are changes in this legislation which create ambiguity. There may be an intent in this amendment to make all general holidays subject to renegotiation. Therefore a person would no longer have that kind of recognition to fall back on that for a working person there were certain kinds of protection and provisions that flowed from working on Christmas Day, Labour Day or New Year's Day and so on. What these changes do is strip away that fundamental baseline and leave it subject, perhaps, to regulation or negotiation. The concern is primarily about regulation by the director.

Another concern is in the case of wages for pregnant women. There is still recourse in this act for people that suffer financial loss of wages under section 56 (c), which says that an employer must reinstate a woman or pay her any wages lost by reason of any contravention. A woman could suffer financial losses other than wages and could want damages for poor treatment by an employer. The example is that losses incurred by the employer's failure to keep up its portion of payments to pensions, medical coverage, dental or other benefit plans as required by the act, the loss of seniority upon reinstatement.... Why should a person lose their seniority because they go and have a child and then return to work after the standard period of roughly six to nine months?

They only get UIC coverage for six months, Mr. Speaker. But why should they lose their seniority and have to start again or change their employment conditions upon reinstatement? It is particularly odious that pregnant women should be singled out for treatment under this act. We would rather see strong language in the bill that would state clearly baseline protection for working women who leave the workplace to have a child, to spend a certain period of time with their child to give the child the best possible opportunities for health and good psychological opportunities in the early days of growth. At some point in the future even males in our society will have that opportunity. It is already a well-accepted fact of life in many societies that men are given opportunities to leave their employment for a certain period of time to share in a parenting role with the child and allow the mother to return to the workplace and have a few months off to experience that parenting role.

MR. R. FRASER: That's right. Let the consumer pay. Who's going to work?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members will come to order, please.

MR. HANSON: I know it's a foreign and novel notion that males would ever want to participate in a parenting role in the early stages and to have that recognized by society as something of value....

MR. REID: Who's going to pay?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. HANSON: The taxpayer pays for the kinds of behaviour that you conduct.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) will come to order.

[10:00]

MR. HANSON: So rather than looking at other jurisdictions such as Scandinavia or West Germany, or Australia, which is moving ahead in these areas.... Rather than looking at that particular area, which is really on the cutting edge and is the vanguard for Social Credit to understand, let's take occupational health and safety. Our hospitals have many, many people in them who are ill because of diseases and conditions contracted in the workplace. Many people believe that a large percentage — 50, 60 or 70 percent — of cancers are actually environmentally induced. This gentleman down in the corner here is always asking me, "Who pays?" Well, who pays when a person contracts an industrial disease such as cancer? Clearly this is in the provisions of this bill and is one of the reasons that we are asking it to be set aside. There are people in our hospitals. There are people contracting illnesses because of the workplace that turn out to be a burden in terms of the health care delivery system where they could.... If there were proper provisions under this bill to guarantee proper occupational health and safety standards in the workplace, many people would not be ill and have to go into the health care system at great cost.

We see that the government is going to advise all the citizens about overhead costs for hospitals when they get their bills. That is just a passing reference, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, that member has not been anywhere near the principle of the hoist motion in most of his speech. Certainly now that he is talking about occupational health and safety, which is not mentioned anywhere in the bill before us, he has strayed even farther than he did at the beginning of his speech. Under the terms of standing order 43, I would ask you to bring that member to order and ask him to take his place if he will not stay to the principle of the motion before us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. The member will continue and please be advised that we've stretched this as far as we can go. To the principle of the hoist, please.

MR. HANSON: Clearly, they don't want to hear about pregnancy leave or health and safety in the workplace. Do you think it would be relevant if I talked about enforcement and issuance of orders for non-payment of wages?

Under the current legislation, there are mandatory provisions. When an order is issued by the board to an employer to make payment of wages, the employer must comply. Under this new act that is no longer mandatory. It is totally discretionary under the authority of the director. We think that it is a retrograde step because it gives discretionary power to an officer. It doesn't make that basic recognition that the province....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I don't know about your patience, but the patience of the rest of the House is being tried. Clearly the member is speaking to the principle of the bill and what should be in second reading. I wish you would bring that member to order under the standing orders of this House. He cannot continue to abuse the rules of this House in the way he is doing.

[ Page 2208 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken, hon. members. I will remind all hon. members that if members wished to speak to the principle of the bill, then they should not have moved a hoist amendment. But now that one has been moved, we will contain our remarks directly to the principle of that amendment, which is to hoist the bill.

MR. HANSON: We're saying to the government that this ill-conceived, ill-drafted legislation is remiss in its coverage of a number of items of basic protection for working people. The items covered in the bill are such things as basic protection on wages, vacation, health and safety, severance pay, the issuance of orders, and so on.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member is speaking to the principle of the bill. He continues to refer to both wages and health and safety, neither of which are mentioned anywhere in that bill; even if they were, they would be under the terms of the principle of the bill. I would ask that you call that member to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that point is well taken. Please proceed to the hoist.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to quote from a small article in the Vancouver Sun, by labour reporter Michael Bocking. Michael Bocking is a very informed labour reporter. Basically he's saying that this bill should be set aside.

MR. R. FRASER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Standing order 43 refers to tedious repetition, and it talks about arguments used by other members. Another member has used that article by Mr. Bocking, so perhaps we could proceed to new material, with your advice, sit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point is well taken. Of course, standing order 43 does refer to arguments which have been used by the member speaking or other members.

MR. HANSON: Michael Bocking indicates that this is clearly a bill that hits workers' rights.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Jesus, we just had it!

MR. HANSON: Look, just because you ride the government aircraft 140 times in one year....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have advised you to speak to the principle of the hoist or discontinue your speech. There appears to be some concern about standing order 43, tedious repetition. So I will cite from standing order 43 what the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) was indicating. "Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in the debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech...." I'm sure the member is now aware that we have had quite enough repetition of the subject matter to which the member is now referring. If he can introduce new material to the hoist moition, the parliament will be well served.

MR. HANSON: A committee of this House should be established while this bill is set aside for six months. We move the bill aside for six months; we appoint a committee of equal numbers; we travel throughout this province. Mr. Speaker, we go to your own constituency — and I probably shouldn't refer to the fact that you're from Prince George — and we sit down to discuss with the mill workers, the construction workers, the rock and tunnel workers, building trades, all the people of that particular region, their concerns about this bill. We should then go on and talk to another neglected region of the province. We should be going to the central interior and talking to the farmworkers of this province. We on this side of the House recognize that we should be recognizing the way this act impacts upon the working conditions of those involved in agrarian functions, and so on, in the interior, which this government should be aware of because that is where the power base of Social Credit is.

I think it would be important to cover various regions of the province, because they differ in terms of their demographic profile, in terms of the occupational groups represented. On the coast people are primarily in the forest industry and in fishing; some are in mining. In the interior we have mining, farm labour and so on, which is an emerging problem. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) must give us credit for that, at least. Working people in farming communities are faced with various kinds of working conditions and situations that are different from those in a more industrial setting, where people work more fixed hours. In the farming communities people work hours that correspond to the more natural cycles of animal husbandry and so on.

While this bill is set aside, and as our committee moves throughout the various regions of the province, we are then in a better position to draft legislation that has sensitivity and is appropriate for the various occupational groupings in the different regions. As you know, the occupational groupings in the Prince George area differ markedly, say, from Osoyoos. I think it is important that a working person in Osoyoos and a working person in Prince George have basic protections in vacation, occupational health, severance, layoff and recall, seniority, and so on. I think that a committee should be travelling to all the different points in the province and holding hearings not just with trade unions but with small businesses, because small businesses are employers, often experiencing what they perceive to be a trauma of having a bargaining unit organize in their workplace. In actual fact it can be a very good thing and can help their business very much in codifying and regularizing working conditions, provisions, and so on — that ad hockery that sometimes exists in small business operations and creates problems.

Taking away rights doesn't necessarily create harmony; in fact, it does the opposite. When you take away provisions and protections that people have, you create anxiety and more dissension in the workplace. That is sometimes not in the interests of the employer and the business person, who really want a harmonious working environment. Sometimes that collective agreement, backed by a good solid, readily understood code of provisions in a labour standards act that provides protection understood by both employer and employee, creates stability in the workplace. It creates a greater sense of investment of the employee into the workplace in a sense of working together and a feeling that they have a joint investment in making the business flourish. That's why I am

[ Page 2209 ]

arguing that the committee should be structured so that it travels the province. Why do we have bills such as this come into the House that don't have Government Employee Relations Bureau involvement and where there haven't been a series of hearings held by the Labour ministry around the province? It is better to get some uptown lawyer — a pal — and say: "Look, draft us something tough, something to knock the daylights and the feathers out of these people." That's the attitude — not somebody in-house, who understands the complexity of the workplace. They go outside to consultants. They pay people uptown, Appin Consultants and all these folks. They get these people involved, and that is wrong. You shouldn't be doing that. You should be holding public hearings. Your ministry officials should be going out during the six-month hoist period and travelling the province.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, we are wandering back to the points in the bill, I would say, rather than the hoist. The House has been very patient, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hear the member advancing some arguments as to the wisdom of delay. I am sure he can continue.

[10:15]

MR. HANSON: As hearings are held around the province, I think one of the things the committee would quickly recognize would be that there is an aspect to this bill which is an extremely dangerous aspect in an economy where there are a lot of bankruptcies. If this bill passes right now, a worker will not have an obligatory claim for lost wages if a bankruptcy occurs in a company. You may not be aware of that, Mr. Speaker. With the number of companies that are going into receivership and into bankruptcy, clearly there must be protection in place that enshrines the right of a working person to recover any lost wages. We saw the case of the ships tied up in Vancouver. That is occurring all over the province. Corporations, small businesses, mines and companies are going into receivership, shutting down and going bankrupt. The first claim that should be made should be for the workers to get the money that is owing them. This is one of the things that we are worried about.

As we travel the province as a working committee of this Legislature, a bi-partisan committee, we would find that all working people in all parts of this province, whether in Terrace, Osoyoos, Smithers, Mackenzie, Telkwa, Langley or near the Hotel Vancouver would be concerned about that provision. They want baseline standards that are presently in place under the existing law. They don't want a situation where the employer can force the employees in tough economic times to take substandard provisions in areas that this bill covers. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would suspect — and I'm just guessing — that as we travelled the province we would hear serious concerns expressed on the removal of severance protection, the removal of the whole pregnancy leave protection, the layoff and recall and adequate grievance procedures which leaves them vulnerable. They would probably say to us as we travelled the province: why would the government, at a time when working people need to know that the province stands behind them on certain basic rights to vacations, wages, severance pay, pregnancy leave and so on, be leaving us vulnerable to re-negotiating all of those provisions downward or out of the collective agreements entirely?

Mr. Speaker, I hope the government will take this opportunity to vote with us to remove this bill. Give it six months and let's travel to Osoyoos.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before recognizing the next speaker, hon. members, the Chair must observe that there has been some concern about what is relevant under a hoist motion. There has been a lot of latitude allowed, I guess, during this type of amendment, but clearly Beauchesne will say that a six-month hoist is in fact a six-month hoist and is used to obtain the rejection of the bill. One must speak strictly to the principle of that hoist. Also with respect to committee work, that would be another amendment, I would presume, if the member were making it, which would not be allowed under a hoist motion.

On the hoist motion, the Chair recognizes the member for Burnaby North.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I do not profess to be an expert in this field of labour law and labour management. It's not an area that I have studied in any great detail. But I am rising to take my place in this debate on the motion to hoist the Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1983, for a certain period of time.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Even though I am not an expert, as I said, in labour relations and labour management and unions, I do have a great concern about this act in front of us for one major reason. I have taken the time to read the introductory words of the minister when he introduced the Employment Standards Amendment Act and then I've compared them with some of the comments that have come in from people who are steeped in the whole matter of labour-management relationships. I have compared the two, and if you will bear with me, I would like to read some of the comments of the minister and compare them with the reactions of some of the members of the community who are concerned with this. I am saying tonight that there would be a hoist to this bill because of the confusion that is in my mind between the words of the minister in introducing this bill and the actual criticisms which have come in from across the province. They appear to be very far apart. For that reason alone I would suggest that the minister and the government may have a serious problem with this bill.

To illustrate this I just want to read a couple of paragraphs from the minister's introduction to the bill and then compare what he says with some of the comments that have come in in order to show you that without a hoist on this bill and an opportunity for the people outside in the community to discuss it, confusion will continue to reign over the true intent of this bill. That is one of my concerns, because, as I say, I'm not an expert in this, and when I see two very opposing points of view coming in it bothers me and I feel that as a member of this Legislature it is incumbent upon me to ask that the minister and the government delay this bill so that it can be studied.

The minister said, when he introduced it, Mr. Speaker — and he didn't say too much, so I will not bore you by reading too much of it — that the bill:

...is intended to address certain issues which have been identified since the act was proclaimed about a year and a half ago. It's necessary, after having observed the practices of the act

[ Page 2210 ]

over that period of time, to clarify some applications of that act to ensure that employees covered by collective agreements will find that their collective agreements are paramount, and to introduce some new provisions with respect to the enforcement of the act and the procedures through which that enforcement takes place.

That is one of the first paragraphs in the minister's introductory remarks.

I have a critique in front of me, which says that there are a couple of sections in the bill that are very dangerous to union members. It says:

"If an employer qualifies as an interested party, then it would be in the employer's interest to stall collective bargaining until an appropriate time has passed so that an application could be made to the director to have the minimum standards of this act apply. Since this refers to the entire collective agreement, it is conceivable that under the application of this section union members could find themselves working for the minimum wage with no overtime provisions.... "

When I compare these two things, Mr. Speaker, it is confusing. We have the minister introducing the bill saying: "This to ensure and protect and make collective bargaining paramount," and then we have a reaction here that says: "This could be highly dangerous to union members."

It continues:

"Although most collective agreements are much richer than the minimum standards of the Employment Standards Act, there are isolated cases where unions have used the act to speed up bargaining when all but a few issues have been resolved."

You see, the minister has not addressed himself to those areas at all. I look at both, and I say that if I'm that confused as a member of the Legislature, then there must be more confusion outside in the community.

Mr. Speaker — and I think you would agree with me that there is one area where we cannot afford to have any more confusion, and that's in labour-management relationships. We all know that unless we have a good climate for labour-management relations in our province, it affects the economy, it affects morale and it creates insecurity throughout the whole public of British Columbia.

I'm trying to say that perhaps this minister is bringing in an amendment in some haste which may actually cause problems out there in the community, which I'm sure, as a Labour minister, he would certainly not want to do.

I note that Mr. Hamilton, who is the former head of the Employers' Council, commented on the appointment of the present Labour minister by saying that he hoped that he would not rush into things. The minister has been a minister for several months, but we know....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Is it a year already? At the time he said this, the minister had just been appointed, but I still think it's rather relevant to state this and quote Mr. Hamilton. He said he hoped that Mr. McClelland would not make immediate major changes to the province's labour legislation. He said: "That would be the wrong thing. It's important to get a feel for the job first. Besides, our Labour Code has worked remarkably well, because it is pretty much bi-partisan." So this is another area that somewhat confuses me, Mr. Speaker, and I don't believe the minister has addressed it in his remarks. Why did he bring this in? Was there a great demand from management or a great demand from the unions or from the public not necessarily in the unions? We know this is a widespread act covering non-union employees too. Who went to the minister and suggested this? Or was it perhaps something that was thought up by the bureaucracy in the Labour ministry?

I think this causes concern, because we haven't seen any great applause to date from management, and certainly not from labour, over these amendments. I think it's unfortunate that the new Minister of Labour, albeit in it for a year now and not that new, should bring into this Legislature as his first piece of labour legislation an amendment that doesn't seem to have been asked for. It's also so confusing, particularly to anyone like myself, who reads both sides and finds two very diametrically opposed viewpoints coming through. So I am concerned.

I also feel another concern as I've been reading through some material here tonight. I feel that if neither labour nor management have been meeting with the minister to ask for this bill to brought forward, I have to ask myself why he has done it. I thought perhaps it was someone in his ministry who decided he could sell this to the minister for some reason or another, and he has adopted it. But if none of that is true, the big question is: "Why?"

I don't think I'm paranoic when I say that perhaps this — and I hope the minister will dispel this — is another piece of legislation that seems to have far more behind it than appears. It appears to be fairly simplistic, but confusing. On the other hand, if you really look through it and take the position that has been given by people who have studied it in much more detail than I have, there almost appears to be a somewhat sinister aspect to this legislation. Basically that is what is concerning me. When I say "sinister," I mean that if this piece of legislation passes, it could lower the standard of living of workers in the province, because it allows the opportunity to bring down the wage structure in this province of groups in our society who already have a fairly decent standard. If this bill allows that, then we have some serious problems with the Social Credit government.

[10:30]

This is my problem. I have critiques of the bill in front of me from labour people who are experts in the field. Maybe labour reporters don't impress the minister too much, but I find that labour reporters attend a lot of union conventions and talk to the minister when they have the opportunity. It seems to me that some of the points they have raised should be giving the minister a bit of concern. I would sincerely hope that there is no sinister motive behind this, but if this bill should bring about a lowering of wage standards in British Columbia — or leave the door open for it — then it lays before us the question of whether the Social Credit government is embarking, because of their desperation about the mishandling of the economy and their almost paranoic use of the word "restraint," on a serious intent to strip the power of the working people and the unions of this province. Why would they do that? Are they so desperate that they figure that if they bring about an opportunity for the lowering of wages in this province, we will become riper for foreign investment?

Interjection.

[ Page 2211 ]

MRS. DAILLY: I'm simply asking the minister the question. Underlying so much of the legislation brought in by the Social Credit government, there does seem to be a thread where they seem to be wanting to centralize power. We find this in the legislation, and I don't think it can be denied. Instead of the Employment Standards Board we now have a single official in the Ministry of Labour who will have discretionary power in issuing orders. Once again we find that the government — the Minister of Labour in this case, like other ministers in the Social Credit cabinet — turning it over from boards to some senior bureaucrat in the ministry to make some major decisions that can be highly centralized.

I don't think that the minister, in his opening remarks, has given a reason for it, except that somebody worked out that it will save the ministry a slight bit of money. I wonder if the amount saved is really worth the concern and confusion that appear to be rampant out there among those people who are most involved and who have expressed their concern over the contentious sections of the Employment Standards Amendment Act.

I am concerned also, because when we keep getting materials sent to us from people, I think we in the opposition have a responsibility to deal with some of those concerns. The former Minister of Labour made it quite clear that he wanted to preserve and not undermine collective bargaining procedures and the power of the trade unions. I think the Minister of Labour may protest that this bill does not do that, but the generality of his opening remarks has left it open for many questions to be asked.

I am probably using some of the wrong words in discussing this bill, because I am not an expert, but I do feel that if other people out there who are experts are concerned, then I have a duty also to take part in this discussion and express their concerns. I have to vote on it, and you know I don't take my vote lightly. Frankly, I don't like voting on a bill that the minister says is rather innocuous but is supposed to help in the whole area of employment standards — I won't use that word "wages" again. Yet on the other hand we have other people telling us that it will not help.

In the material I've tried to pick up, I haven't found anything that could possibly say that there was great applause or happiness out there about this bill. Whenever we talk about minimum standards, one thing that concerns me, particularly in the health area, is where some of the poorest employment standards have existed, and that is in private nursing homes. Many of us recall that one of the areas where workers have had to fight the hardest to maintain proper employment standards has been in some of the private nursing homes in this province. Private nursing, which is there primarily to make profit, is where you find most of problems arising when it comes to an attempt by the employees to try to maintain minimum standards. Naturally it is to the advantage of those who own the private nursing homes to make as much profit as they can, and it's the employees who have to struggle so hard.

That's why any attempt by the Minister of Labour that appears — and I say "appears" again, because of my lack of knowledge on this matter — to be stripping away some of those basic employment standards rights that were brought in by former governments is very dangerous and causes a great deal of concern. Again, that's why I think that of all bills, a hoist is necessary for this one. I don't understand why the minister would have anything to lose. In fact, as this is the first piece of labour legislation that he has presented to this House, I think it would be to his advantage to show that he is willing to take this outside and get a few more comments before he insists on it coming before the House. He has nothing to lose, Mr. Speaker, but he has much to gain as a minister who admits that perhaps he has brought in a contentious bill, even though he may say that it is not.

I note that in some of his remarks on the bill, he went on to say:

Under our system, the collective agreement should govern the ongoing relationship between those parties who have agreed to enter into a collective agreement. These amendments now before the House clearly recognize that relationship and ensure that we don't interfere with it. We believe that when that relationship has been agreed upon, it's up to the parties to determine the terms of their contracts and to pursue the resolution of any differences....

The second major change is the wage-recovery process, We are proposing some administrative changes. The key to these is a greater use of our officers in the investigation and resolution of disputes.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I realize that all of us can't be experts in everything, but I want to reiterate there is nothing more important than the labour-management relationship between the employee and employer in the area of work standards. There is nothing more important than ensuring that the people out there who are going to be affected by this are not made nervous by a piece of legislation that to my mind appears not to be doing anything to improve the present situation. All it is doing is creating a considerable amount of concern outside. That's why I keep asking what the minister has to lose. Why doesn't he let it go to a hoist?

I think the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who just celebrated his twentieth anniversary in this House, is one of the few who was here in 1973; maybe there are a few others in the room. Perhaps they will recall that at that time the Minister of Labour, the former member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, Mr. King, brought in the Labour Code. I'm sure everyone is aware of that. There was an interesting paragraph in his speech in 1973 when he brought this piece of legislation in. It was a very monumental piece of labour legislation, and I think most people would agree, no matter what their party politics, that it was a fairly successful piece of labour legislation. It removed so much of the going to court that we had before, and so many other things.

This is what Mr. King said:

Now I have said publicly in the past, and I have said on many occasions, to labour and to management, that this bill is not offered as a blueprint to which you're going to be tied for time immemorial. It is simply our attempt to translate into legislative language many of the recommendations which you people have brought to us and maintain a fair balance of economic power between the parties, because this is essential to fair and effective collective bargaining, too.

I would hope that that philosophy is still endorsed by the present Minister of Labour. He has brought in a piece of legislation, and I'm sure he too must have received some criticism from groups regarding this piece of legislation. I don't know how he could possibly proceed with it if he does believe in the proper balance of economic power between the two major parties when it comes to labour-management negotiations.

You know, Mr. Speaker, to most people this evening, this may not appear to be a major bill, but it is to the official opposition. We are concerned that some of the points that have been made by people knowledgeable in the labour field, including some of our own members, have raised some very serious questions. If the minister allows this particular piece of legislation to go through, he may be disturbing that balance

[ Page 2212 ]

that the NDP Minister of Labour definitely based his Labour Code on. I would hope that the new Minister of Labour would not want to destroy that balance.

There are questions in front of us to do with this new amendment, and I simply feel that the minister did not seem to make any attempt to go any deeper than what seemed to be a fairly superficial approach in his opening remarks. The elimination of the board is going to save, I understand, some thousands of dollars, but I suppose what we have to look at is that if this government continually talks about doing this for restraint.... But there is also a concern that underlying some of these moves is more than a move towards control of some dollars, with the elimination of the employment standards branch. It should be noted that 145 of 146 decisions handed down by that board in 1981 were related to the payment of back wages owed, and 162 of 175 decisions during the first nine months of 1982 were related to back wages.

[10:45]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Speaker earlier reminded members with respect to relevancy on a hoist motion. I can appreciate how difficult it is to speak for 40 minutes on a subject which really takes only a few moments to discuss, but it would seem that a recitation of the history of the Labour Relations Board or any other board or committee is far beyond the principle of a six-month hoist on this legislation. Perhaps the Speaker would once again advise the members of the need to remain within the principle of a six-month hoist, rather than the principle of the bill. If the members opposite wish to discuss the principle of the bill, perhaps we could vote on the hoist and then come back to second reading.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order, in order to better understand the need for a hoist, the member is drawing an analogy. It strikes me that she was very much in order in so doing. I think when you're asking for a hoist you have to have some reasons and I thought the member was giving some very good reasons.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair appreciates the comments from both sides of the House, and recognizes also the great difficulties involved in speaking to a hoist. However, it is incumbent upon those who choose to speak to a hoist to ensure that the remarks they make with respect to that hoist are relevant. I would give the speaker credit for striving very valiantly to speak directly to the hoist, but I must agree that over the past moment or two the speech has strayed somewhat. Perhaps the hon. member could resume and try to direct her remarks more directly to the hoisting of this bill for six months.

MRS. DAILLY: I'll try not to reiterate and repeat, Mr. Speaker.

I've always felt that the basic reason for trying to convince a government or a minister to hoist a bill for study is primarily that there usually is a concern around that bill. I think I have tried to point out that there are considerable differences between what the minister has said and what people are writing in to the opposition, and what we have been able to discover in analyzing the bill.

There is another section of the Employment Standards Amendment Act which seems to be in some conflict with statements made by the minister. I think the most contentious part is the area which states that parts of the act do not apply where a collective agreement is in effect, and that the director of employment standards can declare a collective agreement void and apply the minimum standards if he's approached by an interested party to do so after a contract has expired and an appropriate time has passed without progress towards a new agreement. What I was trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is that seems.... If you or I or other members of the House were out there and involved closely in labour matters today, and that were the intent of the act, I think there would be serious concern. If that's the kind of act the minister wants to put through, perhaps he should take his time with it,

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: If; yes. The point is, Mr. Speaker, the "if" is not just with me. I've pointed out from the very beginning that I don't profess to be the expert in this, but I am listening to other experts and there are some very big "ifs." I'm sure it's tedious to hear that I'm not an expert, but at least I'm trying to be candid about it so that in no way would I do a disservice to people who know far more about labour than I do.

I primarily am trying to say to the Minister of Labour that if this much concern is being expressed about his bill, we in the official opposition are simply asking him not to insist on putting it through, but to give it time. After all, this is his first piece of labour legislation. I think the minister would be received very well by the labour movement and others if he did hoist this first piece of legislation; that if there is going to be contention and misunderstanding and confusion around it, then he has agreed that he will indeed not put it through the House at this time. I think if he did that he would gain great credibility. As a member of the opposition, I can't say that would help us particularly, but I think we're all here to make sure the majority of people out there have their lives improved. At this particular time it doesn't matter as far as the party politics go, because we should all be responsible for keeping a sane and calm environment in labour management relations. That's why, Mr. Speaker, before I bore any of you any further, I will now take my seat.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm glad I have my favourite Speaker in place and my favourite official critic in his place. I'm very glad that the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) made the motion to hoist this particular piece of legislation. I spoke on the bill in the original debate, and since that time I have had an opportunity to meet with a number of people who work on a day-to-day basis with labour legislation. I don't profess to be an expert but I have worked with previous labour legislation. I have worked since I was 19 years of age, dealing with contracts written for employers and employees. One thing that is always important — and it's something I learned many years ago — is that the intent of any legislation should be very clear in the act or the agreements so that anyone can read it, and it has only one meaning. As you all know, I spent a lot of time dealing with criminal law, traffic laws, bylaws. When any particular act or any section of an act has two meanings, or if it only opens the door or gives a slightly different intention or interpretation of one word, one comma or one section of it when you refer it to another section, you have opened up a legal nightmare. The only people who

[ Page 2213 ]

really gain from this type of legislation are lawyers. The whole idea of our courts today is confrontation.

I have gone through this act and the amendments to the other pieces of legislation. I say in all sincerity that I sat down and talked to other people who are experts in the field. Even with their biases, both the employer in the management side — I say he's in management but I would class him as an employer — and those representing the labour section are finding the wording within this amendment very confusing. They expressed to me, very definitely, that what we should do.... They're kind of shocked right now at what is coming out of this House; they want time to study it. They want time to go through each section and see how it's going to affect their particular workforce and group of employees. As the gentleman in management said: "I can't afford not to have a happy, satisfied and secure group of employees. When I have people out on the job who are bitching...."

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Bitching. It's a common word in the workforce. I know that someone who has worked on the railway understands that.

They don't want it. If we're going to have legislation that is restrictive, then say so; if the legislation is going to be there to protect and give minimum standards, then say so; but don't leave sections in the particular legislation that can be interpreted two ways or that leave any doubt. This is the part that really bothers a lot of employers and employees.

Secondly, I would like to see the act hoisted because I would like the experts in labour law, lawyers, those who are going to enforce this type of legislation, to have a chance to sit down and rewrite many of the sections that are coming up for discussion. There are many problems that are going to come up and cause unhappiness.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Name one.

MR. MITCHELL: The Provincial Secretary asks me to name one. One of the gentlemen I talked to was in a union that deals with the construction trade. In British Columbia we have very mobile and transient employees who travel throughout the province working on various worksites. One of the securities for their families has always been the right to assign their wages to their banks. The families at home are given that security, to know that when the breadwinner is out on the job the money will be coming back to the bank and it's going to keep the family in operation. No one could understand why that particular section was put in the legislation — that the employer was not compelled to make deductions to banks, pensions, etc. People are worried about that.

If I can use a little history — and this is going back many years to when I was working on a ship that was taking the workers up to Alaska to work on the Alaska Highway....

A lot of those employees would come out of the job with $10,000 or $15,000 on hand, and they would end up gambling it away. One of the protections that has kind of grown.... It wasn't something laid down in legislation, but it grew from the need of this mobile and transient type of workforce that that money should come back to the family bank....

HON. MR. ROGERS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, at two minutes to 11 o'clock at night it's nice to hear old stories about what one did in one's youth, but we are discussing a hoist motion on this bill. I would ask you to bring the member into some form of relevance on this, which would be in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister. The member speaking will try to be more relevant. I appreciate the analogy you're trying to draw, but I think it could be done much more quickly and be much more relevant.

[11:00]

MR. MITCHELL: What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that a lot of these conditions grew. The workforce out there are really concerned why that particular section was put into the act. They would like time to meet with the minister, the government and employers to find out the reason behind it. They've asked me for this hoist because they are worried about it. I quite believe that the minister has received the same presentations in his office.

Normally we have maybe one or two pieces of legislation that cause a lot of concern, and then we have one or two nights of heated debate. But in this particular session we've had so much legislation come down which has caused so many groups to be running around trying to defend or understand or oppose some of the legislation that this particular bill has been left kind of on the back burner, A lot of those who are really going to be affected by it haven't had a chance to study it. That's why I support my colleague from Victoria when he suggests — a very positive suggestion — that we set up a legislative committee. I'm really not interested in how it's put together. I don't care if the government wants to dominate it, which I quite believe they would, but I want that six months' time so the input can come from all groups in British Columbia.

You know. Mr. Speaker — and it's been said by my good friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — many times: right now B.C. is in a very fragile economic condition. We can't afford any turmoil. We can't afford an unhappy workforce. We can't afford a group which feels that they are being ripped off by the legal profession when they are getting conflicting opinions of what one word says, or what a certain section really means, and how that particular section affects their separate agreement. When you look at agreements — and I've looked at many agreements, and I know the Minister of Labour in his position also have looked at other agreements — agreements are something that kind of grow from trust and common usage of what something meant in the last agreement. Many times, when I have worked in rewriting agreements — you try to say something or change the wording in a particular part of an agreement, and the employer will say, "What are you doing?" and you say, "Well, it is written very clear," and they say, "That's the way we have always interpreted it. What was wrong with the wording in the last agreement?" These are the things that happen. They happen every day when the smaller, less militant unions sit down together with a well-meaning employer who at one time worked with the tools of the trade on the job, and understands conditions. They are not the legal beavers who make up our legal profession. They have said, maybe in very broad terms, what they meant, something that they meant. But when it was torn apart before a supreme court or county court judge, or even a board of arbitrators, what they meant and what was written down were two completely different things.

[ Page 2214 ]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I have found, going through this particular bill, that the terminology is very unclear; it is very broad. In fact, there are sections in there that don't even make sense. I know that we could get into the committee stage and we could argue over sections — what a certain word means or what a certain subsection means — but when you go through it it doesn't mean anything. I don't want to get into sections, but I want this to be rewritten, I want it to be restudied, because there are sections that don't even itemize that an employee can have a union representative with him. In some cases that is good and in some cases that is bad. What is important is that if it is needed, it should be written into the agreement or the legislation, and it should be very upfront and straightforward. When I go through this particular bill, this is not there; it is not clear, not positive, not understood very easily. I think it is so important that labour legislation, like labour agreements, have the legal power, but it also should be understandable. I don't think that our job as legislators is to create legislation that will make a lot of work for my good friends in the legal profession.

I think our main job is to ensure industrial peace. I think it is important that we look at where we are going in British Columbia. We do need some changes. Let's look at it in the broad sense. The legislation must encourage this labour peace. We are going to look at making sure that everyone from the smallest unions to the most sophisticated unions, with their business agents and their legal staff, can go through this piece of legislation without any problems. I sincerely say to the Minister of Labour and the cabinet that we can't afford to go out into the workforce, into our economy, and leave that doubt. I am quite sure that even in your position as Speaker, you have gone through it as the MLA for your area. This is the important part: each one of us has to go through this legislation, each one of us has to understand it. With the amount of training that I have had, I don't understand it, and a lot of lawyers....

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, speaking of going through the legislation, I have been sitting here carefully reading the explanatory notes and I have been listening to the member who has been on his feet and, Mr. Speaker, I can find absolutely no comparison, relatively speaking, between the two. Having heard different Speakers bring this member to order in regard to relevancy, I would ask at this time that you ask this member, as it is in your power to do, either to speak directly to the hoist of Bill 26 or to discontinue his speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, when discussing motions such as the hoist motion before us, it is the opinion of the Chair that it would be usually very difficult to spend 40 minutes strictly relevant to the hoist. There was an exception which the Chair referred to earlier. The current discussion by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew would lead the Chair to believe that the hoist motion itself is not the centre of the member's remarks but rather the bill itself, which could be discussed more appropriately in the second reading stage of that bill. I would hope that the member would consider those remarks and return to the specifics of the hoist motion before us.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate your understanding of what I am trying to do; that is, that I want this hoist. There is some concern with the wording, and I want it studied. I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that it is very hard to speak for 40 minutes without referring to sections of the bill. I thought I did a very good job. I was careful not to go into detail. I appreciate my official critic from Omineca.

Basically I have established why I want this hoist motion to succeed: I feel that the bill is not clear. The bill has not had an opportunity for input from those who are going to be really concerned with its implementation. If it goes through in its present state, without the hoist, without the study, without the rewriting, we are going to have a lot of industrial unrest. I don't think British Columbia can afford that unrest. Within the next six months we have an opportunity to study it, to listen, and to take my colleague's suggestion to set up a committee and go out into the province with this bill. If we want to take the suggestion of my other colleague from Nelson-Creston, which was to consider it as a White Paper.... Let's study this present legislation — the wording and how it is going to affect the provincial workforce — and make sure that we have the best piece of legislation to ensure that the basic minimum standards within British Columbia....

With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that maybe we should take a vote right now on hoisting it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I should read the motion, hon. members. The motion is that the motion be amended by leaving out the word "now" and adding the words "on this day six months hence."

[11:15]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 9

NAYS — 30

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

On the main motion.

MR. STUPICH: One reason that might have been advanced in speaking in favour of the hoist would be to have given us an opportunity to review the minister's comments on second reading. Perhaps at some time or other we should consider the poor, overworked staff who are trying to catch up to everything that is being said in the Legislature these

[ Page 2215 ]

days, so that we'll see the Blues a little more currently. It's small wonder that they aren't able to keep up....

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk slower.

MR. STUPICH: In any case, it would be helpful in some situations to have the remarks of the ministers, but not in all cases. It wouldn't have been particularly helpful in this instance now that I do have a copy of the Blues. The minister's remarks in second reading were quite brief.

He didn't have very much to say in support of the legislation, although it is one of the package of 26 bills brought in at that time. It would appear as though the minister had hoped it would pass very quickly and without too much debate; or perhaps he didn't realize what was in it. There has certainly never been any suggestion advanced to this point in time — when the minister introduced it, he didn't say — that it came from any sort of consultation with any of the people who would be affected by the legislation. I have a copy of a memo about a resolution passed by the Vancouver city council asking that certain pieces of legislation be held back until there was an opportunity for consultation. I don't think this has yet been referred to. It refers to Bills 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 22, 26 and 27, for a total of eight bills that the Vancouver city council thought should be held back and considered further. They felt that people should have an opportunity to discuss them with the minister before they were passed in the Legislature. But I have heard no evidence to the effect that the minister did give any consideration to requests for consultation.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I hear one comment from somebody or other that it wasn't unanimous. There have been quite a few votes in this House during the last three months that haven't been unanimous, but I'm not sure what that proves. It's also been said that you don't always get the truth by counting noses.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

Bill 26 does a number of things, one of which is to eliminate the Employment Standards Board. It's not a very old institution. It has been working effectively, to the best of my knowledge. It was introduced with a great deal of fanfare by the previous Minister of Labour as a way of dealing with many problems.

Perhaps B.C. as much as, or maybe even more than, any other Canadian province has had a rather stormy history of labour legislation. Having lived in the province all my life, I'm aware of some of that. I can recall some of the stormy legislation introduced in the past in this Legislature. I can recall some of the storms that resulted when legislation was introduced without any kind of consultation between the Ministry of Labour and the people affected by the legislation. In this instance, I'm looking at one part of the legislation that talks about doing away with the board, repealing the definition of "board." I'm wondering why the minister found that necessary. In his remarks the minister told us that he wants to remove the bureaucracy — our own administrative procedures. What he is saying is that he wants to centralize, as with most of the other pieces of legislation. It would seem that the main aim of legislation is to centralize power in the hands of the minister — the Minister of Labour, in this instance.

I'm quoting from the Blues. The minister said: "The second major change is the wage recovery process. We are proposing some administrative changes. The key to these is a greater use of our officers in the investigation and resolution of disputes." That would be great if they were going to provide more officers to resolve such disputes. We have been told that there is going to be a 25 percent cutback across the board in all government ministries. I would assume that that includes the Ministry of Labour. To the best of my knowledge, these officers are already working very productively. They're fully engaged in the work they're doing now, without having to take on more responsibilities.

The minister continues: "In unresolved disputes an industrial relations officer will now be empowered to issue an order for payment of wages owing." What it doesn't say is that he will be empowered and will do it if he can find the time to fit it into his already overfilled schedule. He went on to say: "A person affected by an order will have the option of having the matter reviewed by the director" — if the director has the time to do it — "or, on the issuance of a certificate, appeal to the county court." Well, if that's the way to speed up the process, I'd like to know what the minister would do to slow it down. To go back to the courts with this kind of dispute surely has to be a backward step, even in the mind of that minister.

The minister goes on to say: "We hope that these amendments will speed up the process for settlement of claims" — I think that must be a vain hope — "and reduce the incidence of non-compliance or wilful delay, so that the workers may get those payments which are owed to them in these kinds of disputes as quickly as possible." Certainly we all wish that would happen, but we fear that the legislation before us now, particularly the part that would eliminate the Employment Standards Board, will do nothing to speed up the process. It's going to do nothing to make it easier for workers to get the wages owed to them. As well as all of the other responsibilities that the Employment Standards Board has accepted since it was first brought into being in 1980.... It was first established as the Employment Standards Board in 1980, but that really wasn't the beginning of it, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to recall a bit of history, partly because I want to impress upon the minister, and upon other government ministers — both of them who are in the House right now — the advisability of consulting with people when they're bringing in legislation that is going to affect such large groups of people as will be affected by the legislation before us right now. Why not consult with people? What is the hurry to put through this kind of legislation? Why get rid of the Employment Standards Board — a board that seems to be working — when that board is so busy looking after the problems that are being referred to it regularly, perhaps on a daily basis?

[11:30]

Other Ministers of Labour have found, to their sorrow, that bringing in legislation without consultation simply gets them into hot water and leads to more labour-management strife in the province. Some of the ministers have had a lot of problems. I have a headline here from a paper dated March 27. The government of the day was bringing in new labour legislation. They certainly didn't consult organized labour about this. There were battles in the community and a great deal of resistance to the legislation that was being brought in, in particular to the government supervision of the strike vote.

[ Page 2216 ]

But it's the process I'm talking about right now, rather than the core of the dispute at that particular time. "The battle is reported to have reached a point of revolt even in cabinet ranks, with Labour Minister George Pearson said to be flatly refusing to move second reading of his own bill if the government supervision requirement is not written out of it."

Mr. Speaker, I can't imagine that kind of battle taking place these days, not in that cabinet. They're all agreed, when it comes to dealing with labour, that the more repressive they are the better they are. So there wouldn't be that kind of battle. But one reason I referred to this is that the Labour minister of that day, George S. Pearson, was the member for Nanaimo. He served the government in many capacities: he was Minister of Health at one time, he was Provincial Secretary at one time and he was Minister of Labour at one time. He was fairly well regarded by organized labour as a Minister of Labour. When he was obliged to introduce this legislation in the House, at one time he said that he wouldn't move second reading himself. At one time it appeared as though the Provincial Secretary was the one who was going to be obliged to bring in the legislation. It's not that he was opposed to the whole package, but he was opposed to certain features of it. One of those features, of course, was the supervised strike vote.

Mr. Speaker, I bring that up as history only because, as I say, of the process. The concern at that time was that there had been no prior discussion between organized labour, between employers and the government and between organized labour and the government. The government decided that it was going to solve a problem — a problem that didn't exist, perhaps — and they were going to bring in a solution to it at that time.

One of the things that the Labour minister of that day said about the legislation he was bringing in, as reported in the Sun of April 1, was: "The Labour minister also revealed that he will turn over a lot of the detailed administration of the labour policy to the Labour Relations Board which will be set up under the act." It was really a forerunner of the board that is now being done away with. I know we still have the Labour Relations Board, but there are other responsibilities. At that time this board was taking some of the responsibilities that the board which we are now doing away with currently has.

Mr. Speaker, we're going back to 1947, and the minister of that day wanted to get the administration out of his department and turn it over to a board, a board that would be appointed by the minister, certainly. Nevertheless, the minister is now turning the clock back and trying to take complete control of the administration of all labour-management problems into his own hands, rather than leave such matters in the hands of a board that has been working successfully at resolving these problems for several years in the province of British Columbia.

From the time this legislation was passed in 1947 the Labour Relations Board served the people of the province well. That was just the beginning. On April 2, 1947, the legislation I'm talking about did pass. There was bitter opposition. There's opposition to the legislation now, although perhaps not nearly as bitter as it was in 1947, because organized labour has had so many pieces of legislation to which they've had to object. Of the 26 pieces of Iegislation, at least a dozen of them were ones that organized labour strongly opposed, so it's pretty difficult to organize the kind of bitter opposition as was organized against British Columbia's Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act that was introduced in 1947. There was bitter opposition then. There's bitter opposition now to a whole package, not specifically to this particular bill. But it's interesting to recall. We're talking about something that was 36 years ago, and some of the same language is used: "Bitter opposition...developed as opposition members charged the government with 'fascist tactics.'" We can recall, Mr. Speaker, some of those words being used in the last three months in the province of British Columbia. "Herbert Gargrave (CCF-Mackenzie)...asserted that British Columbia 'was going to stand out like a beacon' because of the legislation...." That same accusation applies to some of the legislative measures introduced by this government. This bill before us now, of course, was one of that package of 26 pieces of legislation introduced on July 7 when the budget was introduced. It is one of the package that makes B.C. stand out like a beacon, as Herbert Gargrave said this particular bill that was introduced in 1947 would made B.C. stand out.

"It took six hours for the Legislature in committee to consider the ICA Act section by section...." Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps some of the bills before us now will take longer than six hours. In those days six hours was a long time to get through committee stage. Time will tell just how long it takes in this session "...with opposition members fighting valiantly...."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, hon. member. We have very few members in the House, yet we have a very, very high noise level. I wonder if you could just hold it down a bit. The member for Nanaimo, who is very much in order in his debate, has the floor, and I would ask that we give him just a little bit of courtesy. Thank you.

MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your interest and your support.

MR. REID: We were paying complete attention. We heard every word.

MR. STUPICH: Perhaps the member who's talking so much from his seat — and who again declines to speak from his feet — missed part of what I just quoted, so I'll repeat it for his benefit.

"It took six hours for the Legislature in committee to consider the ICA Act section by section, with opposition members fighting valiantly but futilely to introduce labour supported amendments." There are a lot of amendments that we will be introducing in this session, perhaps some with respect to this bill, perhaps not. And we will be fighting.

Going on with this newspaper report from April 2, 1947: "Repeatedly they tried to trap Labour Minister George S. Pearson on his own admission that he personally could not support the clause calling for government supervision of strike votes." I'd like to think we could look forward to the day when one of the ministers on the government side of the House now would feel so strongly about some principle that he would actually threaten to vote against his own administration. I'd like to think that even one of the back-benchers might just do that one day. It's a vain thought, but it would be interesting to see it.

MR. PARKS: If you yield, I'll speak on the bill.

[ Page 2217 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the member wants me to yield. If he takes a took at the clock he'll see just how long it'll take me to yield. I can't go on any longer than another 22 minutes. Then he'll have his opportunity.

"It was the longest working day for the House in recent years. From 10:30 a.m. until 1:30 a.m.... " Well, Mr. Speaker, they had it pretty easy in those days, didn't they? The longest working day in years — from 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. We could certainly show them a thing or two these days. Haven't we progressed in 36 years? "...with the exception of 90 minutes for lunch and two and a half hours for dinner." They went only from 10:30 in the morning to 1:30 the next morning, with three and a half hours out for eating. Things were relatively easy in those days, it would appear.

"For a brief moment, when a division was called in connection with the debate on section 72, the clause providing for government supervision of strike votes, it appeared that Labour Minister Pearson would vote against the government." What a dream that it would happen in these days! The legislation was passed. The legislation did provide for the establishment of a Labour Relations Board, as I said earlier, the forerunner of the board that is now being done away with. It did all of the work currently.... Perhaps not all of the work, but it did work that is currently being done by the Labour Relations Board and the board that we are doing away with now.

The board was established by that legislation that was brought in in 1947. It's interesting that the legislation amending that act that was just one year old in 1948.... In section after section amendments were made to give further authority and further responsibility to the Labour Relations Board, and to take those responsibilities away from the minister. In those days the government was moving to take administration out of cabinet meetings, away from ministers. This is really the first time in the history of the province that the clock has turned back to the extent that it has this year, where minister after minister has brought in legislation to centralize power in his hands. Previously, year after year legislation was introduced — and labour legislation was introduced as early as 1948.... Section 2, the definition of "Conciliation Board"; section 17, lines 2 and 7; section 18, line 1; section 21 (l), line 1 — I've just started. I've only read three lines out of a dozen. All of them took the administration of these items out of the hands of the Minister of Labour and gave it to the Labour Relations Board. That's the direction they were moving in in those days.

I don't intend to go year by year, but the employment standards legislation of 1979 still referred to the board then as a Board of Industrial Relations, constituted under part 8. That Board of Industrial Relations had very similar powers to the Employment Standards Board which was actually created in 1980 by legislation introduced by the minister's predecessor in that cabinet position. Those powers of investigation are very extensive, Mr. Speaker. In the 1980 legislation much more was covered than was covered in 1979. The 1979 Employment Standards Act had references to the annual and general holidays legislation, control of employment of children, deceived workers, employment agencies, hours of work, master and servant, maternity protection — which one of the members wanted to talk about on the hoist, and he was continually called to order — minimum wage, payment of wages. All of these things were matters that could be looked into by the Board of Industrial Relations, constituted under part 8 of that legislation.

Coming up to 1980, and now we have renamed it; we call it the Employment Standards Board, and give it many more responsibilities, many more opportunities to look into matters that now the minister wants to take away from that board and take under his own control.... I see the minister shaking his head. I have no particular faith in that minister wanting to look after the rights of organized labour, nor do organized labour organizations. Most of them expressed their concern about the appointment of that particular person as Minister of Labour. I think the minister is saying that organized labour should look after itself. Of course, that is what the whole government is saying. let's do away with government service. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) has said the same thing. If it were left to him there wouldn't be a ministry of consumer services, at the rate he is going.

[11:45]

The member talks about interference. There are times when the ministry has to step in between employers and employees. There are times when employees have to go to the Ministry of Labour for assistance. There are times when employers want assistance from the Ministry of Labour. At those times people appealed to the Employment Standards Board. When the minister wonders what times, I could read him a whole list of opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, the member wishes I would. Let's go through the list. The Employment Standards Act. See what it deals with. Wage protection. If they weren't paid then people could appeal to the Employment Standards Board.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Is that going to change?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister asks if that is going to change, and I say there isn't going to be a board to appeal to any more. The minister said he will look after it, but he is going to do it with less staff than he currently has to do the jobs that they are doing now. How are they going to have the time to take on the added responsibilities? When the minister says, is that going to change, I say, yes, it is going to change; it is going to be left to the employee, if he really wants to get his wages, to go to county court and try to get them out of county court. That is a significant change.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense.

MR. STUPICH: It is nonsense. I wish the minister wouldn't do it. I wish he....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The rules of our House call for only one member to be in debate at a time, and I would ask those not on their feet in this debate to hold their debate until they are on their feet.

MR. STUPICH: Some members seem to do better from their seat than they do from their feet, and he is certainly asking questions that he is giving me an opportunity to answer. He asks: what does the board do, or what is going to change? Let's look at the powers of the board, section 90 of the Employment Standards Act. "For the purposes of this Act, the board and each of its members has the protection, privileges and powers of a commissioner under sections 12, 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Act. I have had time this evening, Mr. Speaker, and I have looked up those as well. Take a look

[ Page 2218 ]

of the Inquiry Act and see what kind of authority that board has.

Protection of commissioners.

"12. A commissioner appointed under this Part has the same protection and privileges, in case of an action brought against him for an act done or omitted to be done in the execution of his duty, as are by law given to the judges of the Supreme Court."

In that section, at least, he certainly has power. Section 15 reads:

"Power of commissioners.

"15(l) The commissioners acting under a commission issued under this Part, by summons, may require the attendance as a witness...

Who is going to be able to do that under the new deal?

"....at a place and time mentioned in the summons, which time shall be a reasonable time from the date of the summons, of any person, and by summons require any person to bring and produce before them all documents, writings, books, deeds and papers in his possession, custody or power touching or in any way relating to or concerning the subject matter of the inquiry.

"(2) Every person named in and served with a summons shall attend before the commissioners and answer on oath, unless the commissioners direct otherwise, all questions touching the subject matter of the inquiry and produce all documents, writings, books, deeds and papers according to the tenor of the summons."

Mr. Speaker, I have had occasion to appeal to members of this board on behalf of constituents, and I found them very helpful. It doesn't always go to this kind of investigation, but in the event that they needed it then the opportunity was there.

"Power to compel attendance of witnesses:

"If any person on whom a summons has been served by the delivery of it to him, or by leaving it at his usual place of abode, fails to appear before the commissioners at the time and place specified in the summons, or having appeared before the commissioners refuses to be sworn, or answer questions put to him by the commissioners, or to produce and show to the commissioners any documents, writings, books, deeds and papers in his possession, custody or power touching or in any way relating to or concerning the subject matter of the inquiry, or if a person is guilty of contempt of the commissioners or their office, the commissioners have the same powers, to be exercised in the same way, as judges of the Supreme Court in the like behalf.

"(2) All jailers, sheriffs, constables, bailiffs and all other police officers shall aid and assist the commissioners in the execution of their office."

Who is going to do all that, Mr. Speaker?

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: He says this is going to be changed. That's not much solace. Does that mean the Inquiry Act is going to be changed? The minister says that isn't going to change. I have been telling him what authority the board had, and he says it isn't going to change; they still are going to have the authority, but "they ain't going to be" any board.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I believe the Minister of Labour is saying that the board didn't have that authority. Shall I read the legislation again?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's have orderly debate.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I think I heard the minister saying that we should have the six-month hoist so that he could read the legislation. From his seat, the minister said that the board did not have the authority that I have just read out. May I read from the Employment Standards Act, section 90, Powers of the board: "For the purposes of this act, the board and each of its members has the protection, privileges and powers of a commissioner under sections 12, 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Act." I read those sections from the Inquiry Act, and I believe the minister said that the board did not have those powers. I don't know how this section 90 can be interpreted any other way than the way I have interpreted it. Section 90 is a very short section, just a little, over two lines, and it says very specifically that the board and each of its members — any one member — has the protection, privileges and powers of a commissioner under the sections of the Inquiry Act that I quoted. The board did indeed have a great deal of power. The board was a very busy board. I could read the description of the board, how it came into being, how it was established, the importance of it, the predecessor in that post when he set it up told us how important it was going to be and what a job it was going to do.

There was a story in the Vancouver Sun on July 10, 1980: "The creation of an Employment Standards Board, replacing the Board of Industrial Relations. The new board has power to order rectification and compensation for financial loss if the act is violated. In the past, the only recourse for an aggrieved employee was through the courts." We are turning the clock back. We are going back so that the employee's only recourse once again will have to be through the courts. Sure, he can appeal to the ministry, and the officers, who are already far too busy, are going to have an opportunity to help him, when and if they can ever get around to it, and eventually they can go to court.

That was included in the minister's remarks, I believe. I think it was in second reading that he said they can go back to county court. I am not sure whether the minister has had much experience recently in trying to get into county court, but from everything I hear about it that is not the easiest place to get into if you are in a hurry. Usually people who are trying to get wages paid in a dispute with their employer are in a hurry; they need that money rather desperately.

That was a good move. It was a good move in 1980, and was supported by the opposition when the Labour Minister of the day introduced legislation which, among other things, created an Employment Standards Board. It talked about the constitution of the board, the setup of the board, who might be on it, how many might be on it, how many might be required, what a quorum would be. That was progressive legislation. I don't know whether there was any consultation. I know from conversations I had with labour leaders and from newspaper stories I saw that the labour leaders then thought that they had some kind of consultative process going with this minister's predecessor as the Minister of Labour. There were newspaper stories saying that they were at least able to talk to him. I don't recall any stories saying that he listened, that he reacted to any of their problems positively, but at least

[ Page 2219 ]

they felt they were able to sit down and discuss their problems with him with a view to reaching solutions. I have not heard any of that with respect to the current minister.

As I said at the beginning and repeated several times in my remarks, this minister has never indicated that he has sat down with organized labour and discussed any of the changes that he is proposing in this bill before us now. How much trouble he might have saved himself, and how much time he might have saved in the Legislature, had he sat down with the people to be affected by this legislation — sat down and discussed it with them, discussed the need for it. Is there any need to do away with the board? What is he going to achieve by doing that except to put more of a load on the courts? Is it really going to save anybody any money to take more of these disputes to county court and to take them away from the board that is being done away with? How much is the minister going to save? How much more is it going to cost the community totally to get lawyers involved in arguments that previously have been resolved by this particular board?

It is one more backward step. Taking matters such as this out of the hands of a board appointed by the minister and turning them over to a county court to resolve is going to take longer and cost a lot more, and a lot of people are going to give up without even trying. A lot of people are going to lose wages due them, apart from all of the other problems that the board has had to deal with since it was started with such fanfare by the previous minister in 1980.

Mr. Speaker, we did argue in favour of a hoist. We hoped that the minister would agree to hold back on this legislation for the time being and discuss it with the people affected. It was obvious that we didn't win that argument. The minister wasn't at all interested in talking to the people affected. The arrogance of that minister is equalled by many other ministers among his colleagues. They have no interest at all in listening, no interest at all in sitting down to talk to the people affected — to their constituencies in their capacity as ministers. We are not serving the interests of the people of the province, as we were urged to do by the Lieutenant-Governor when the opening speech was delivered in this Legislature on June 27. If the ministers were prepared to sit down....

There is no hurry for legislation like this. There is no reason at all why the minister couldn't have waited. There is no reason at all why the minister couldn't have discussed with organized labour.... Of course, one has to wonder if this is just the first shoe. What is going to happen next? There have been rumours about other labour legislation that will affect organized labour. Just rumours so far — nevertheless, rumours that have a lot of people worried.

The legislation before us tonight is legislation that should not be proceeded with at this time. It is not going to solve any problems, it is going to create problems. It is going to make the process much more expensive, much more time-consuming and it will work against the interests, once again, of people in the community who can't afford to go through the new process. It didn't cost them anything to go to this board and present their case, as individuals, as employees needing assistance. It is going to be very expensive for them and very time-consuming for them to go the alternative route suggested by the minister when he spoke in second reading on this bill.

The opposition is opposed to this legislation, as it is opposed to most of the 26 pieces of legislation brought in with the budget — as we were opposed to the budget. We hoped that the government would listen and would withdraw this particular piece. It wouldn't have cost them anything — a matter of saving face. It would have shown some good faith on the part of the minister if he had recognized that this was not a terribly important part of the government's legislative program. Yet it would have shown that they were prepared to sit down and discuss, with the people affected, the import and the effect of the legislation they were bringing in. The minister had that opportunity. As I pointed out earlier, a previous member from Nanaimo — Minister of Labour — was prepared to listen to organized labour. It is best to react positively to their major concern, This minister has shown that he has no interest in listening to the constituency he should be serving as Minister of Labour. He argues that employees should be able to solve their own problems. I ask you then, Mr. Speaker: why do we need a Minister of Labour? Why do we need a minister if he is not going to serve the constituency he is supposed to represent on being appointed as Minister of Labour?

[2:00]

This legislation should be taken back by the minister. It should be discussed with the people affected. In the meantime, since we have turned down the opportunity to move the hoist, we must vote against the legislation.

MR. PARKS: I ask leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, this evening we have in the precinct a number of constituents from Maillardville-Coquitlam, and some from Burnaby and New Westminster. They happen to comprise the board of the Westminster Credit Union, and I'd ask the House to make welcome: Mae Reid, Bob Gayton, Barry Forbes, Barry Ward, Garry Martinick and Bob Johnson. And a very special welcome to a Social Credit candidate for New Westminster, Mr. Barry Butler.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the opportunity of introducing the guests in the gallery to the rest of the cabinet, but they are not around right now so I'll pass on the message that you are interested. I would have also liked those people introduced in the gallery to hear the government's position on this bill — but we can do that by leave, I suppose.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've waited all night.

MR. BARRETT: We've waited all night, and not one government member has spoken. But I can understand why, Mr. Speaker: they don't want to be embarrassed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Now to the bill, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for bringing that member to order.

We are dealing here with Bill 26, the Employment Standards Amendment Act, which is a departure from the general practice of the existing standards. One of the problems in dealing with this legislation is that, again, this is an arbitrary introduction of dramatic changes in a field that largely depends upon human communications rather than law. Most labour disputes can be avoided by mature, rational discussion

[ Page 2220 ]

between employer and employee. The last thing they need is more dramatic government intervention by a Big Brother government that wants to run everything from their various departments in Victoria.

MR. MACDONALD: Or from the Hotel Vancouver.

MR. BARRETT: Take your pick, Mr. Speaker.

You want to run everything. Some poor employer out there who has got a handful of people, coming along very well under the existing labour standards, has to hire a lawyer at.... Lord knows how much money lawyers cost nowadays. They don't understand restraint — not all of them understand restraint. They wear $700 silk suits. It costs a lot of money to hire a lawyer. They've got those high-class suits and everything else. Why do you think they support this kind of legislation? It's more money for lawyers. It's another one of those centralizing bills that confuses legislation and makes it harder for some poor businessman to go out there and hire people under the existing standards. There's no consultation and no awareness, and all it does is make money for the lawyers.

The last thing this party has had a reputation for is paying attention to lawyers. No government has been in more trouble than this one because of ignoring lawyers, and now they're going out telling other people to hire them when they ignore them. You order them to do it by changes in legislation without consultation.

One of the things that I never do is attack the lawyers who act as Clerks in this House. But there are lawyers who do come into the category of heavy-duty costs to the small businessman. Not everybody gets a chance to own a hotel like the Hotel Vancouver.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, order, please. We are on Bill 26. I would ask the member to keep his remarks relevant to that bill.

MR. MACDONALD: He has, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: I just consulted with a lawyer. That's going to cost me money. This is Bill 26 — and that was free advice.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's no such thing.

MR. BARRETT: And no free lawyer either; I may get a bill for this.

Mr. Speaker, what has this bill brought in for that poor little entrepreneur out there who is being interfered with by big government on his back? This government tells that small businessman out there: "Don't worry. We're going to cut the red tape." Here are 42 more sections of red tape that you've never discussed with anybody out there.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Now we're engaged in debate. We've actually got a Socred who has been permitted to talk.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not for long, hon. member. I would like order, please, and I would like the member on his feet to relate to the bill before us.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had something going there for a minute. That was pretty good, Mr. Speaker. I want to quote from an article in the Vancouver Province, dated Wednesday, August 3, 1983: "Private Sector Hit by Bill 26." Who is going to stand up in this House and fight for the small businessman? Come on! Let's hear it from you freedom fighters over there. Listen to what the press is saying about this bill and its effect on the small businessman — the bureaucracy you're pushing on the small businessman without consultation.

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

I would like to say there was some improvement in the Chair, but it's not one of those occasions when I can say it. I quote from this article: "There are a lot of sleepers, besides the knockout punch" — I'm not talking about the House right now; I'm quoting from this article — "that permits firing without cause, in the legislative gauntlet tossed down by the provincial government. One of them, the Employment Standards Amendment Act, Bill 26, will have a direct impact on labour relations in the private sector. 'Although a lot of the sections are merely housekeeping, some changes are quite substantive,' lawyer" — there you go, right off the bat — "Tom Roper told a packed Industrial Relations Management Association seminar last week."

AN HON. MEMBER: All 14 of them.

MR. BARRETT: Well, it's more than the dense pack back there.

Did the minister send someone to that conference to explain this bill? In taking your notes for closing debate six months from now, would you make a note. I asked you a question: did you send someone there to help explain this at that seminar?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I've got to find out. I don't see that the conference was held at the Hotel Vancouver or the Four Seasons. The chances are that the minister didn't show up, so I want to know.... It's right in here? Let's see. It doesn't say. So you checked all the hotels, did you?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, it was at the Hotel Vancouver. Were you there?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, they must deliver the whole agenda under your hotel-room door every day to tell you what's on. Coincidence — you were there at the same time. Strike off $100 we saved on the hotel room.

"'Although a lot of the sections are merely housekeeping, some changes are quite substantive,' lawyer Tom Roper told a packed Industrial Relations Management Association seminar last week. A major feature of the bill is a clause allowing collective agreements to provide conditions below the minimum

[ Page 2221 ]

requirements set out in the Employment Standards Act."

Who asked for that? Did the private sector ask for that? There is no evidence that the private sector asked for that. Did the trade union movement ask for it?

Mr. Speaker, nobody asked for these changes. This is a figment of research left over from that drug program that flopped. This is the draft bill for compulsory treatment for heroin addiction that didn't work and cost the minister $20 million. Since he spent money for a lawyer to draft the legislation, he just changed it a bit and put it in the labour circles.

I go on to quote the article....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I don't want to be so rude as to break up a sub-cabinet meeting. Now that it is over, I'll carry on.

"In the past, many unions haven't bothered to upgrade their contracts to meet these standards, because the act was there, but Bill 26 proposes that where there is a conflict between contract and legislation, the contract will prevail." Who asked for that? Did the small businessman, who is struggling to pay his loans at the bank at exorbitant interest rates that you haven't given a fig about in terms of trying to help them save some of their money? Did the small businessman, who you should be fighting for in terms of getting costs down, ask for this additional burden? Did the small businessman come to this government and say: "We want more bureaucracy; we want more confusion; we want additional costs in labour relations"? That's exactly what you are putting on that small investor, that small entrepreneur. It makes it all the more difficult for him to survive in a very competitive society. What is the justification of adding costs to the small businessman?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's the added costs?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, if you disagree, then get up and give a speech and explain why you support this bill and the additional costs to the small businessman contained in this bill.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, you can go on and show off to your guests. I won't say anything about it. But make it logical and stand up and defend why this bill is adding additional costs to struggling small businessmen in this province. Don't just chip away from the corner. Stand up and tell us why this is going on in the province.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, would you defend me from that lawyer. He may send me a bill for the interjections. I hope it is not on Dawn Development stationery.

I'm sticking to the bill here. I want to point out that these questions raised by Mickleburgh have not been addressed by the government. He goes on to say: "'A lot of contracts have pretty archaic language, especially in an area like maternity leave,' said Roper. 'Now that archaic language will form the substantive provision of the collective agreement.'" What is the employer going to do when he has staff and he has an arrangement, say, on maternity leave, which is a substantial part of labour negotiations and labour situations simply because a significant percentage of employees in the small private sector are women? Now what happens to those existing contracts? What happens to those existing arrangements? In those businesses where planning has taken place in terms of that kind of relationship with employees, it is all over. The employer may be faced with whole new costs, unplanned for, unscheduled, simply because of the overnight changes without consultation with anyone in the community, about labour relations related to these smaller contracts.

Roper is a fellow who is in the business. Roper is a lawyer who represents the employers' section in these relationships. He is not out fighting for unions, and he is not out fighting for any kind of union-busting, but he is making a point that the private sector is getting hit again with the additional costs of a bureaucracy of a government that doesn't explain why it is doing it.

"Another section of Bill 26 allows the director of the employment standards branch to arbitrarily cancel collective agreements once they expire, upon application by 'an interested person.'" Who is the interested person? Could it be a rival union in an organizational dispute at a workplace, unable under existing legislation to sign up the employees, disrupting in terms of open season on a contract? That rival union comes in and says they are the interested party and they break that contract that could be renewed without disruption at the workplace. You are opening the potential of labour warfare at the worksite unnecessarily, exacerbating existing rivalries between competing unions to the detriment of the employer.

What is the protection for the employer under the definition of an interested person? Suppose there are four unions, as sometimes happens in a democracy, interested in organizing at one workplace. What happens when that goes on? Some of the bitterest, most disruptive disputes and labour management relations have absolutely nothing to do with working conditions but with competition between unions to sign up employees at one work spot. The Speaker knows full well of what I am speaking. The Speaker himself....

Sometimes Speaker; excuse me. There are people in this chamber who have had experience between the IWA and the Canadian pulp and paper workers' union. I don't know who those people are, Mr. Speaker, but don't nod.

[2:15]

The fact is that under this new legislation that kind of inter-union rivalry, when a contract ends, will be open to an interested person to stand up and destroy what may have been a traditional relationship — albeit ending one under contract, but a traditional relationship — between a small employer and his employees in the union. What is to stop the kind of raiding that could go on under this section?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The Labour Code? Then why mess this around? Why have this section? Why the definition of an interested person?

AN HON. MEMBER: It could be the employer who wants to cut the minimum standards.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, it could be the employer who wants to cut the minimum standards, as my colleague says. It

[ Page 2222 ]

could be. But the definition is so vague, and it says clearly, "upon application by an interested person...."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's if the contract is not renewed.

MR. BARRETT: When the contract is not renewed you've got it. Ring the bell. Hang on to your seat. You've got it. During negotiations, when the contract is not renewed, another union can come in and start moving.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, they can't? Mr. Speaker, there have been instances of collusion between employers and different unions. Yes, there have. You know that and I know that. You nod your head. We both know what a serious labour situation develops when that kind of collusion comes to the fore and you have the kind of dispute that starts off locally in that same industry and spreads and spreads and spreads throughout the whole industry.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Member! The worst thing you can do in labour-management relations is assume you are drafting perfect legislation, that you are going to solve all the problems through legislation. You lawyers have such a narrow view of what labour-management negotiations are all about. The worst thing that can happen to labour-management negotiations is to start having lawyers interpret what is going on in those human relationships.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Perfect legislation? I want to tell you, we had to send it back a number of times. You know what we used to do? We used to listen to the opposition, and on the rare occasion when they gave good suggestions we would amend the legislation right here on the floor of the House.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Name names? The Labour Code. During that entire debate the whole House participated. Amendments were made across the floor of this House in a way that you have never done in your government — not ever. As a matter of fact, when we were in committee, Mr. Speaker....

AN HON. MEMBER: Name an amendment that came from our party.

MR. BARRETT: You mean you never gave an amendment? Don't criticize yourselves.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You want to bet? Do you want to step down if I prove that we accepted yours? Will you step down? Will you promise to vacate your room in the Hotel Vancouver if I show you?

AN HON. MEMBER: I haven't been there for a long time.

MR. BARRETT: I know, but we're still paying for it. Check out, for crying out loud. It costs us too much. Do you get a retainer on a room?

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member saw fit to digress somewhat significantly and I would ask the Speaker, keeping in mind standing order 43, that the member not be allowed to digress to the extent that he clearly has. The standing orders indicate that a speaker should maintain a degree of relevancy. I would suggest that this hon. member has far surpassed the rules of relevancy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for your comments, hon. member. It would be helpful if hon. members would quit interjecting and allow the member to debate. The member will stick to the principle of Bill 26.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the admonition to myself and the minister. But the minister and I were beginning to communicate in a way that perhaps is not acceptable to a new member of the House who knows the rules far better than the minister does. I don't like to see the minister being rebuked in that way by a back-bencher but that's the way it is. You can take care of him later — if you want to punch him out later or whatever.

He's gone! He's going to write out a bill. You wait and see. I know what kind of lawyer he is.

To go on with the conversation I was having with the minister before he was rudely interrupted — before his interjections were interjected — I want to point out that Roper says: "I don't know who 'an interested person' is, but there seems to be a real potential for conflict between that section and the whole thrust of the provincial Labour Code." Have you written a letter to the editor? Not the press counsel because they are not quoting you here. Have you written a letter to the papers and said: "Look here, this fellow, Rod Mickleburgh is wrong and there's a little confusion. I want to straighten out this confusion for the small businessman who may be affected by this legislation"? Have you done that?

The point is, the minister is allowing that confusion to spread, allowing this kind of information that may, in the minister's opinion, be incorrect, to be a guidepost for some poor, confused, beleaguered employer out there who may even have voted for you. What is he going to do? Roper said: "I don't know who 'an interested person' is, but there seems to be a real potential for conflict between that section and the whole thrust of the provincial Labour Code." That's contrary to what the minister said in his interjection, so we have that confusion. The article goes on to say that there are also pitfalls for employers: "One section says employers wishing to appeal wage payment orders must make a deposit amounting to 10 percent of the ordered sum." Now they're charging that small businessman who is the backbone of the engine that's going to drive the economy to recovery, according to Social Credit. They're charging him 10 percent to challenge a wage decision, and "this deposit is returned only if the order is cancelled." Somebody has to speak for the small businessman in this province, if it isn't that great, big, juggernaut Big Brother government over there that likes to spend a billion bucks on a program to subsidize coal to the Japanese....

But the poor little business guy in B.C. who is trying to

[ Page 2223 ]

survive and actually believes what they spout about free enterprise gets hammered with this bill and loses more money. You're going to make those poor little business guys cynical.

"This deposit is returned only if the order is cancelled. If the order is merely varied, the money is kept by the government." Ten percent may be enough to keep the guy from going for a decision.

MR. MACDONALD: It's a deterrent fee.

MR. BARRETT: It is a deterrent fee. He's better off getting sick; he gets a better deal from Nielsen than he does from this guy. The whole system is that they want to charge for government when people are paying taxes for government. Now some poor little businessman who's got enough problems as it is has to face up to big government in Victoria limiting him from doing business. Not one of those backbenchers wants to go back there. It even affects those in the chicken feed business. The member for Central Fraser Valley (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) used to be in the chicken feed business. His policies in Municipal Affairs indicate that background. It goes on to say that the cost to the small businessman, whether it's chicken feed or not.... It may be chicken feed to some people but it's not to others.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can't find any reference in Bill 26 to chicken feed.

MR. BARRETT: It's not chicken feed.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: If the chicken would stop feeding and get back to the bill....

MR. BARRETT: I don't know under what standing order the member gets up to define chicken feed. It's not chicken feed to the little guy who has six or seven employees and is caught up in this mess.

MR. MACDONALD: Sixty dollars for the Hotel Vancouver isn't chicken feed either.

MR. BARRETT: Is it that cheap? I guess you get it at a permanent rate; is that it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) stop interjecting, please?

MR. BARRETT: The point is, why do you need to put the hammer on the small businessman with this kind of legislation? What did they do to you? What are you mad at them for? What have you got against small business? Why are you going around making it more and more difficult for business to survive in this province? Why do you confuse the small businessman like that, telling him you believe in free enterprise, and then coming in here with more legislation, impeding that poor little engine from getting started up and reviving the economy? What have you got against the little guy out there who is trying to make a buck out of capitalism? You're embarrassing me as a democratic socialist standing up here, forced to defend the rights of the small businessman against an oppressive centralist government that doesn't believe people can think out their problems for themselves. I don't understand why they would go out of their way to hire lawyers and draw up legislation like this which confuses them.

There's the other side of it: the workers' side. The minimum guarantees are to be dropped, according to Michael Bocking, labour reporter for the Vancouver Sun.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting this bill. In my defence of the businessman, maybe I'm missing a thrust in attacking the working people. I'm confused. Who are they attacking in this legislation? Is it the businessman, the working people or both? Do they want to cause trouble for business, do they want to cause trouble for working men and women, or do they just want to cause trouble, period? Both sides of the bill seem to cause trouble for both the employer and the employee, without any consultation.

I want to read from an article by the Sun labour reporter. Michael Bocking says, in the Vancouver Sun:

"Thousands of employees may find they do not enjoy the rights they thought they had when the provincial government implements amendments to the Employment Standards Act. Currently the act serves as a mimimum standard of wages and work conditions that applies to union and non-union workers. The Social Credit government intends to change the act so that sections covering wages, vacations, maternity leave and layoff or termination procedures do not apply to union members if they already have provisions in their contracts governing these issues. The change significantly affects many agreements because labour and management negotiators bargained on the understanding that no contract could undermine the minimum standards of the act." That's right. They had no idea this legislation was coming. The minister didn't consult with anybody.

[2:30]

MR. MACDONALD: He consulted with the Fraser Institute.

MR. BARRETT: Is this another one of the Fraser Institute bills? I don't see why he should take advice from the Fraser Institute. They don't pay taxes. They're tax exempt. Did you know, Mr. Member, that the Fraser Institute is registered with a tax exempt number? Are you shocked to hear that?

MR. MACDONALD: Peter Pocklington is on the board.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. Do you pay tax for going to a psychic?

Back to the bill, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank you for allowing me to be interrupted. It's true, but would you warn my colleague not to interrupt" He's the one who raised the stuff about the Fraser Institute and Pocklington.

The article continues: "'Before, they (labour contracts and the act) interlocked and gave combined protection,' said labour lawyer Leo McGrady." Now there's a different lay of lawyer, Already we're out two bills, O'Grady. Yes, it certainly sounds like a better one — the other was Roper. This one is McGrady. I quote:

"'People have bargained on the basis that the Employment Standards Act served as a minimum. So many agreements have rather weak language in some

[ Page 2224 ]

areas, because they figured the act served as a minimum.' McGrady said there are likely many agreements, covering thousands of employees, that will be affected by the changes."

What do you think of that, Mr. Speaker? There is no participation in the community out there with the people involved. There is no participation by the small businessman, who is getting huge costs added again because of this bill. He's trying to survive in business and doesn't want to be bothered with big government in 1984, bothering them over in Victoria. I go on, and I quote: "While most unions have better wages, vacation and overtime provisions in their contracts...."

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: He's gone to consult with his lawyer. Two of them. You know, it's just like under this bill. This bill works in favour of lawyers. If there is one lawyer, he starves to death. If there's two lawyers, they can make a living fighting over legislation like this. All you are doing is providing lawyers with a living. This is the lawyers' living bill. Why don't you come out and say it? Welfare for the lawyers. All of them can't be the A-G. Some of them have to work. So you've got this problem here, and you go and create work for lawyers, and some of them, like this McGrady here, are already admitting that it's going to add confusion.

"'Women are going to be hit hardest,' McGrady said, because many unions have substandard maternity leave provisions. He added that restaurant, maintenance and other service sector employees, who often have weak clauses covering benefits, will also be hit hard by the changes. McGrady explained that contract negotiators previously assumed the act governed these areas and were not too concerned if their contract language became weak on some issues."

What's the hurry, Mr. Minister? If these changes are indeed brand new and threatening and unique, and they haven't been prepared for, why don't you hang off for a year? There's no urgency on this bill. Hang off for a year and consult with the people, both management and labour. Ask them if these are the changes they wanted. That's a reasonable request. Why don't you wait a year and consult with the people who are going to have to pay the cost of this and see what they think about it? Have you consulted with any B.C. businessmen? This may be an Ontario bill. You may have got it from all the flacks you hire from Ontario, but what has it got to do with B.C.? Has the minister consulted with any employers or any labour people in B.C. on this bill before he drafted it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bert Hoskin.

MR. BARRETT: Bert Hoskin. That cost them $20 million. He ain't going back to that one again. There was Larry Eckardt, and Bewley was in on that one. Twenty million bucks they blew giving guitar lessons to addicts. That was great. As long as you discussed it at the Hotel Vancouver, it was worthwhile.

Back to the bill. I want to know if the minister talked to anybody in labour and management about his bill before he brought it in?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you suggesting that the minister take his place in debate?

MR. BARRETT: No, no.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Continue then, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: I'm just giving him a chance to write the questions down. He's a slow writer. He's made a mental note of it. Well, we lost that one.

"For example, the Independent Canadian Transit Union has not negotiated major changes in maternity leave for years. Union president Colin Kelly...."

Where are these guys coming from, Mr. Speaker? McGrady, Kelly. Mr. Speaker, you know Colin Kelly. Wasn't he the fellow that piloted that B-17 in the Second World War? I think it's the same name.

"...Colin Kelly said union negotiators assumed over the years that the act would apply and there was no urgency to change the contract language. 'There are a lot of things which have not been addressed over the years in many unions' contracts,' Kelly said. He added that the number of dramatic changes the government has introduced, chopping programs and laying off staff, has left some union leaders almost numb in disbelief. 'The enormity of the changes has been calculated to desensitize us. We have people who say there is no way the government can possibly implement this. A lot of times I've found myself absolutely speechless in how to respond,' he said. 'This is similar to dousing a cat in gasoline to see what kind of reaction you get. It is vindictive and sick.'"

Well, I'm not accusing the minister of dousing cats in gasoline, especially at the cost of gasoline, with the provincial tax going up quietly this weekend. I didn't want to bring that up, because it is out of order, Mr. Speaker. But in the cause of restraint the provincial government is goosing the price about 1.3 cents per litre on gas. Buy it before the weekend when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is trying to hold the government down, gets more money out per litre on an indexed basis. We don't have to discuss taxes here any more. It's done automatically now. Madam Member, in case you are interested, you voted for that. Anyway, that is how they do their gouging.

But aside from that, Mr. Speaker, and to stay in order so this government can continue its progress, I read: "If the government passes this amendment, McGrady said" — this is not Kelly any longer, but it could a relative — "it could cause a lot of labour unrest as unions scramble to improve contract language covering these issues." That's only natural. Then there will be rivalry among the unions as well. And who is going to cause it all? A stranger from Victoria, a fellow who spends more time in the Hotel Vancouver than he does in this Legislature, except this year. Why is he causing all this trouble?

He goes on: "The changes to the act are included in Bill 26, which was presented by the government last week along with the budget and a flood of other legislation. Another provision that could have an impact is a new clause governing working conditions when a contract expires and a new agreement is not readily approved." That's the same point made by Roper. That is particularly harmful where there are competing unions in the same locale. Who goes in to settle that dispute? Is the minister going to get personally involved in an appeal from small employers when that kind of dispute breaks out? The minister is asking for more trouble that he

[ Page 2225 ]

had when he was trying to cure drug addicts. He's heading into the kind of complicated human relationships that are a hallmark of labour-management negotiations.

The former Minister of Labour, the member for Prince George North (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), knew enough not to poke sticks into hornets' nests. That's why he got along so well. The best thing you can do as Minister of Labour, sometimes, is go to sleep. I think they should give it to cabinet ministers who show a demonstrated ability to go to sleep without having to rent hotel rooms that cost so much money and we don't know if they got any sleep.

AN HON. MEMBER: He should have given it to Lorimer.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there's one amendment we'll take. There's proof that we've got an open mind. We'll make it retroactive, Mr. Member.

But the fact is that here we've got a messing minister not a menacing minister, because a menacing minister has a plan. There's no plan. He's going to go into a situation where, as McGrady points out, when a contract runs out its terms continue to govern working conditions and wages until a new agreement is reached. However, the act would allow interested persons, which we've already defined, to apply to the employment standards director to rule that the terms of a previous contract no longer apply if it is not replaced by another agreement. Who needs that headache? Who asked for that headache? Who wants that headache? What kind of bureaucratic madness are we heading into in this legislation without consultation at all with the people affected?

Time has run very quickly. I notice the green light is on. It's got nothing to do with Kelly or McGrady. The light is green, period.

I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of this House.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: We have to do that. I want to because the minister has indicated in this legislation that they haven't made any consultation.

[2:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS 6

NAYS 29

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

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to check the bells in the opposition headquarters to see whether the bells are ringing in those areas or not.

MR. GABELMANN: My colleague for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) has a saying that I think is appropriate in talking about Bill 26. He says: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The basic reality is, in fact, that while there may be improvements that could be made — and I certainly would be one to argue that — the elements that the Minister of Labour deals with in this particular bill do not deal with any parts of the Employment Standards Act that are broken, as my colleague would say. I suppose the primary motivation that initiated the preparation of this legislation most likely had something to do with the court decision of Mr. Justice Lloyd McKenzie some months ago, in which he argued that the Employment Standards Board was null and void under section 96 of the old BNA Act, the Canadian constitution. That may have been too convoluted a sentence. In case it was, I will say it again; I didn't understand it myself, so I think I will say it again. The decision of Justice McKenzie was basically that the authority of the province was being exceeded by the Employment Standards Board — in his words, generally taking on powers that belong properly to federal courts, section 96 of the BNA Act and, if my memory is correct, section 96 of the new act as well. That decision was made and an appeal was launched and, of course, the appeal made it clear that Lloyd McKenzie — I was going to say made a mistake, but I guess judges don't make mistakes — chose an option that wasn't supported by the higher court. What we have in my view, and I could be wrong about this, is a situation in which we have legislation in front of us as a result of events that in effect haven't transpired, because the power and authority of the Employment Standards Board is in fact within provincial jurisdiction, as the higher courts have ruled.

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

I intend to get back to that in more detail later on this morning during my comments on this bill, but I want to say — and I am going to take some time in going through it — that I really believe that this is the wrong process to deal with what are for the most part technical and complicated amendments to a technical bill. I am not saying by that that it should be more properly debated in committee, although some parts of it obviously should. But one of the realities of this bill is that it is, for most people, a little bit like reading Greek; it is not something most of us deal with on a day-to-day basis. In fact, when I talk to people who deal with employment standards legislation, particularly lawyers but also trade union representatives and employers and people who work for the ministry, I get conflicting opinions as to what various sections in this bill mean. We will have an opportunity in committee to argue in more detail about the relative or the respective opinions on certain sections of the bill. I really think this is not an improper but an ineffective forum for policy-making and law-making of this kind. I won't pursue this point for too long because I suspect it will draw me out of order, but it would be far more effective to take a small committee of this House — a labour and justice committee — and refer the bill to that committee. Ask it to bring in expert witnesses, ask it to consult with various people dealing with this kind of legislation on a day-to-day basis. While all of us in this Legislature can attempt to assimilate the views of those

[ Page 2226 ]

people who deal with this out in the field, none of us deals with it as part of our living; none of us deals with it on a day-to-day basis. As a result, undoubtedly we will miss some important elements in the debate which might not otherwise be missed if we were in an informal, small committee setting, with an opportunity to discuss in a very informal way with people involved on a day-to-day basis.

I wouldn't say that about every bill presented to the House. A lot of bills are statements of philosophy or very clear and simple choices that we can all understand and relate to quickly without having to draw in experts or consult at any length. For those kinds of bills it is quite appropriate that we go through this second reading and Committee of the Whole process, but I really believe it's not appropriate for this particular bill. It's a lengthy bill with a lot of sections in it. Many of them are obviously consequential as a result of the elimination of the board, which I'll deal with at some length later on. It contains several principles, to my way of thinking. I guess the contentious section is section 2. It's certainly contentious in terms of what it means.

I read and reread the minister's introductory comments to the bill in an attempt to see if I'd missed something in my interpretation of the legislation. I must say that I'm a bit disappointed he didn't take more time to argue the case. I know that considerable work has gone on in the ministry in terms of thinking through what the objectives are of employment standards legislation. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), I believe in the budget speech — it may have been the throne speech — called for this section, which is the one that allows collective agreements to supersede the act even when they have standards that are lower than the act calls for. Regrettably, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke dealt with that more substantively and more substantially than did the minister in his opening comments.

I just want to go through very briefly what is, in effect, two and a half pages of comments. It's out of the Blues obviously because of the unavoidable delays in getting Hansard prepared. In his second sentence, the minister says: "It's necessary, after having observed the practices of the act over that period of time" — referring to about a year and a half — "to clarify some applications of that act." That's fair enough; we should be doing that with virtually all legislation in front of us. None of us believes that any legislation is enshrined in stone. He continues: "....to ensure that employees covered by collective agreements will find that their collective agreements are paramount." The bill does that in some measure, when you look at the table in the middle of section 2 of the act dealing with a few elements of labour standards.

To digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I might admit that in my view — and this view may not be shared by my colleagues; I haven't canvassed this with them — there is a reasonable and legitimate argument that is entirely appropriate on the question of whether or not the law of the land should supersede collective agreements in various areas. The three areas that come to mind quickly are: labour standards; the sort of safety-related questions that come under the WCB application; and of course questions that come under the Labour Code itself. I think all of us would argue that the Labour Code has to have some paramouncy in terms of denying the right, I guess, of a union and its employer to devise contract language that would fly in the face of public policy in this province. It's a debatable point, but there is probably general agreement if there has been a consensus on that issue over the years.

[1:00]

When it comes to the question of whether or not WCB safety standards should be paramount over collective agreement safety standards — the right to walk off the job during the course of a collective agreement, if people feel, for example, that certain standards aren't being met — that's another area for legitimate debate. A recent court case on that question, if my memory serves me correctly, I think in Kitimat, arose out of....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: That's right, it was the Northwood pulp mill in Prince George — the CPU. The whole question of whether or not the right.... What superseded it basically is the essential question of what is the higher authority, collective agreement or the law. It's a legitimate argument. I wouldn't be serving my ideas on labour relations well, nor I think serving a debate well, to dogmatically say that it's black or white, that one side or the other in any of these areas is absolute. I think too that when it comes to labour standards there can be some argument.

We have a different tradition in North America than in Europe when it comes to labour standards. Here we've always considered labour standards to be the minimum, the very floor; organized workers attempt to build on that and do better. In Europe, of course, labour standards tend to set the pace and take the lead for new and innovative standards in the workplace. That's another discussion I'll come to a bit later.

There is a legitimate debate. In commenting on that debate, I would say that if there was a community consensus for a collective agreement to supersede employment standards — and I haven't detected it yet.... I know that the ICBA and a couple of other organizations — and I'll get to that later too — have asked for it. I know the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) has asked for it. I don't remember that it was asked for by very many other groups. I certainly don't remember its being asked for by very many other MLAs in this Legislature, by any trade union or group representing workers of any kind in this province. Clearly no consensus has yet developed on that overall issue. In an area like this, where you have a choice between going the collective bargaining route or going the route of employment standards via the legislation, where there isn't a major philosophical question.... There really isn't. We're attempting to achieve some basic standards for people. At least I take that for granted; I assume that. I could become more emotional and vitriolic in debate and deny that that's the government's intention, but I don't intend to because I really believe there's no intention here to deny basic rights. But one of the impacts of it is that in fact it does — first, because consensus hasn't developed.

Collective agreements haven't responded to the possibility, much less the likelihood, of laws coming into place which would mean the collective agreements were insufficient. There are many cases — I know of literally dozens, perhaps hundreds — where collective agreements are weak and not very significant when it comes to maternity protection, pregnancy leave especially. But some other aspects are also referred to in the table. Those collective agreements often occur in industries where unions are relatively weak and haven't developed the bargaining strength to include good language. In some cases I will admit that the unions may have been dominated by male membership, which hasn't given

[ Page 2227 ]

much concern to the minority of its members who might be women, who obviously would be more concerned about pregnancy leave protection; as a result, they haven't negotiated into their agreements proper protection. Obviously there is some value judgment attached to the word "proper," but I'll call it proper protection.

Upon proclamation of this bill, what they're faced with is that if there is some mention in their agreement about these items, any mention whatsoever, that mention becomes law. Their reliance, properly or improperly, over the years on the employment standards legislation, whether in its new form or its older forms, means they have not in fact served their members very well. One could criticize them for that, but it's a reality. It is a reality of life in a great many workplace situations. I conclude this thought with this: if we want to develop a consensus in our society that employment standards should be governed by the collective agreement rather than the legislation, there needs to be some time, there needs to be at least the opportunity to go back into bargaining at least once. Probably in some cases it is going to take more than once. Most employers I think would be ready to grant those minimum standards that have been in place, but the unions for the most part will be unable to write those sections into their collective agreements until the collective agreements expire and they conclude the next contract.

What happens in the meantime? We are going to find that some very minimum standards — if, in some cases, any standards at all — are going to apply in questions of hours of work, overtime, special apparel — which seems remote or not very important at first glance until you begin to think it through — annual vacations or vacation pay, termination of employment or layoff, and maternity or pregnancy leave. That's obviously the one that I think poses the greatest problem.

While I can't and don't want to get into the question of proposing specific amendments to a bill at this stage, I think it would serve the minister well if he were to go back and talk to his advisers, perhaps some of the people affected by the legislation as well, to see some kind of transitional clause or section could be added so that unions do have an opportunity to negotiate those standards if they haven't heretofore. Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, in talking to the minister directly I don't see that as a significantly large barrier, in a philosophical sense, for the government to initiate. What I am basically proposing is that the existing standards be allowed to continue by some transitional clause in those instances where they won't be continued, because there is reference in the collective agreement prior to the knowledge that this law would be introduced and passed. I am sure the minister understands the point I am making in this case, and I seriously hope he gives it some thought.

In making this comment I am obviously conceding that this new principle that is being injected into the employment standards in this province....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Madam Speaker, one of the problems I have in making proposals is that I could take the bloody-minded approach and just say this is wrong; you are wrong in principle to go to this new principle. I could take that approach, or I could take a secondary approach and say it is wrong in principle until a consensus develops. But I am trying to do what would be the next stage, which is to say okay, it seems to me we are not going to be successful in persuading the minister not to introduce this section. I may have missed something here but I fail to comprehend the concern expressed across the floor by the Minister of Education. It may be that I haven't expressed my thoughts clearly enough, or it may be that I am wrong; it wouldn't be the first time.

Essentially I'm saying that the situation now for employees in respect of those items in the table in section 2 is that employees who have some mention of those issues in their collective agreement, but who do not have protection as strong as is provided by the Employment Standards Act, will have that protection and those standards diminished until such time as they're able to conclude a new collective agreement, including the new language — similar, perhaps to what's in the Employment Standards Act, or better; whatever they can get — if they want it. At the moment they have it. They have it by law at the moment. What I'm suggesting is that until they have the opportunity to negotiate new language, they should have the option in that meantime to continue under the Employment Standards Act, as they do now. That's all I'm asking for. I've made that point; let's leave it at that. That was all generated by the second sentence in the minister's opening remarks, which I quoted earlier.

In introducing the bill, he suggested that "these amendments seek two main objectives." I think there are more than two objectives met in the bill; nevertheless, the minister thinks there are two main ones. "The first of these is to remove the bureaucracy..." To a certain extent, if you think of an employment standards board as being a bureaucracy it certainly has done that. I want to come back to that, because I think that was a wrong move. "... — the director and the branch — from disputes which should more readily be pursued through the collective bargaining process.... "The problem is that minimum standards apply not just to people with collective agreements; in fact, for the most part minimum standards legislation replaces a collective agreement for those unorganized workers. So while it should be pursued through the collective bargaining process, we still have to recognize that somewhere in the order of 58 percent — I'm not sure of the current numbers, but in that order — of the workers in this province are unorganized at the present time. So people have not had the option in the majority of cases that have come before the employment standards branch — before the director and before the board.

The majority of those cases are not cases that arise out of situations where collective agreements have been in place; they arise in the organized workforce. Therefore to argue that they should more readily be pursued through the collective bargaining process is really not particularly relevant. If the minister was arguing that everybody should be organized and everybody should have a collective bargaining process at their disposal, then he and I might find some agreement, because I think one reason for stability and great economic growth, for development and security of employment in Europe is a high percentage of trade union organization. But I don't think that is what he was arguing in this; certainly from his other statements I would be very surprised if he was.

[1:15]

His second objective, as I read it, was "...secondly, and not quite as importantly, to improve our own administrative procedures." Thank you for that, because the administrative procedures in labour standards needed to be improved.

No question. Our argument will be about whether or not this

[ Page 2228 ]

new process in fact improves that process. I don't believe it does, because while it may make it flow more quickly, it doesn't necessarily make sure that justice is done.

The minister goes on in the fourth paragraph of his introduction: "Under our system, the collective agreement should govern the ongoing relationship between those parties who have agreed to enter into a collective agreement." Fair enough, but would the minister extend that all the way across the board? Are you prepared to extend that into health- and safety-standard contract language completely, and say if a union and an employer agree to certain procedures and certain rules that are very much different from those proposed by workers' compensation legislation — or by the Labour Code, for that matter — that he would allow that? That's an interesting statement, if that's the case. I suspect, based on my listening to government policy over the years, and to what the minister has been saying since he was appointed Minister of Labour, that in fact he probably doesn't want the full implications of that sentence to flow.

What you're talking about there, in the ultimate, is really to go more to the British system — the old British system, I should say; it's being modified at the present time — and say okay, whatever mutually agreeable arrangements are made between the union and the employer through the collective bargaining process are fine by me. I don't think the minister would agree to that. If he does, if he would, we're into some new areas of labour relations in this province that we need to explore, hopefully at some length. I don't quite know when the opportunity will come for that, but it's a pretty significant departure. I suppose in one instance at least — the new Greenhills contract in the riding of the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) — there are some very new ideas being tried out. The basic idea of no fixed expiry date in the contract is being tried out, dividing the contract into different sections and doing the negotiating all along. It is a very different kind of procedure than is called for and expected under the Labour Code, but not inappropriate perhaps. I am watching that one with some interest, because it may well be the beginning of a new way of looking at these questions.

When he gets an opportunity to conclude the debate, the minister might want to expand somewhat on what he means when he says: "The collective agreement should govern the ongoing relationship between those parties...." The implication is that there is no arbitrary third-party interference. I am one of those people who have argued that third-party interference in collective bargaining is counter-productive and destructive to good labour relations in the long haul, although it may solve some problems in the short term. So if the minister is saying that the Essential Service Disputes Act, or if the Labour Code was as proposed in the leaked draft, the thirty-fourth draft of the proposed changes to the Code.... If that process was going to be followed and the Essential Service Disputes Act eliminated and in fact incorporated into the Labour Code, it called for an even greater involvement by the government in the collective bargaining relationship between the parties, as did the other sections where they talked about the public interest. I can't remember the other section where the government would have the right to declare certain economic projects as areas where strikes — or picket lines, for that matter — couldn't take place. That's a different direction than this sentence implies.

"We believe that when that relationship has been agreed upon, it's up to the parties to determine the terms of their contracts and to pursue the resolution of any differences through their own dispute-resolution mechanisms, which, under the Labour Code, are plentiful...."

I agree. It doesn't happen all the time, but it is a sound principle. If people know ahead of time that that is going to be the case, they can deal with it in their collective agreements in terms of employment standards. It's just a question of not knowing ahead of time.

"I must emphasize," he says, "that workers not covered by a collective agreement are unaffected by the proposed changes." That's obviously true in terms of section 2, but it is not true in terms of other sections of the bill which propose changes to the process of adjudication of complaints. Obviously, aggrieved parties who no longer have the right to go to the Employment Standards Board have had a change. To say, as he did in his introductory remarks, that workers not covered by a collective agreement are unaffected by the proposed changes is not entirely true. I suspect the minister had in his mind, when he was speaking, section 2 of the bill and not the rest of it.

"As well, collective agreements that do not address standards which are contained in the act will be deemed to contain those provisions."

If I understand that correctly, that's straightforward and appropriate. If they don't talk about maternity protection, for example, if no reference at all is made in the agreement, then the standards in the Employment Standards Act apply. If that's what we agree to, fair enough.

He doesn't go much further than that; I won't quote any more. Those were the sections I had highlighted. I do not want to raise the level of rancour by saying this, because I don't mean it that way. My intention is that we attempt at least to have an intelligent debate about the legislation. But I really do believe that the minister failed in his own responsibility by not preparing himself better prior to introducing the legislation. It may be that he was well prepared, but if he was he should have shared with the House those well-prepared thoughts.

On section 2 as well, which I think contains the major principle of the bill, I have had a number of opinions expressed as to.... I'll put it another way. A number of people whom I have consulted have given me different views of what it means. I'm concerned that when practitioners in the field — so-called experts — have different views, it may well be that the opportunity of applying the legislation may well fail in that it would be litigated and end up in the courts.

I would like the minister, when concluding the debate, to explain to me why the items in the table are lumped together the way they are. Why would hours of work, overtime, or special apparel be lumped together? It is obvious why hours of work and overtime are lumped together but, for the life of me, I can't understand, nor have I found anyone who can, why special apparel would be included with hours of work.

I see the green light, Madam Speaker. I think we can ignore it because my colleagues have agreed that I can be the designated speaker.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm speaking very quietly, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure what I would do if only one of them were asleep at the moment, but since they both are, I think I can continue in a quiet way. When they start to snore, I'll start to increase the level of....

Interjections.

[ Page 2229 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Those two are quite a pair.

To continue on the point, Madam Speaker, obviously the other groupings have some logic to them: termination of employment or layoffs are together. Annual vacation or vacation pay are obviously together; maternity or pregnancy leave is just one issue. But why the lumping of hours of work with special apparel? It's quite beyond me.

The major issue — maybe a lawyer would tell me differently, but I think it's a minor issue — is really contained in subsections (5), (6) and (7) of section 2. Section 6 reads:

"The director may, after an application under subsection (5), make inquiries he considers necessary to ascertain what progress has been made toward the conclusion of a new collective agreement, and where he considers that an appropriate time has passed without reasonable progress toward the conclusion of a new collective agreement, he may declare that the continued application of the provisions of the collective agreement is no longer appropriate."

When I first read that my initial reaction was that the director of the employment standards legislation could make null and void all provisions of the collective agreement. You're shaking your head. I said that when I first read that, it was my impression — it comes from my not being a lawyer — that what we were doing with this legislation was giving to the director the opportunity or the right to declare null and void all aspects in a collective agreement, or in effect the whole collective agreement. People I talked to, including lawyers, still maintain that that's what it does. I wasn't here at the time, and I haven't seen the Hansard, but I gather the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) made this point. There was some exchange in the House and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), in an interjection, indicated that that was not the intention, nor could the legislation be read in that way. Yet some of the presentations, briefs and comments that have been given to me by people involved in the field much more than I am, who know far more about it than I do, suggest there's fear that that was the implication. First of all, a director may, after an application under subsection (5).... Basically an application under subsection (5) can be made by anybody at all. "An interested person" could be an employer, another union, an individual or a member of the public. It could be any person at all who can demonstrate they have an interest in having provisions — however many is obviously open to some question, if not debate — of a collective agreement ruled null and void.

[1:30]

The arbitration law is clear in this province. I'm not expert enough in this stuff to know how many arbitrations have been written on the question as to whether — I think this is the central question — a collective agreement's provision are still in force after the expiry date. There is no doubt about that. Everyone agrees that the collective agreement provisions are in place. There are all kinds of examples. I can think of several outstanding contracts right now between various employers in the health field and the B.C. Nurses' Union, just to pick one out of the air, where 18 or 20 months have gone by without renewal of contracts, largely as a result of arguments that have been generated as a result of the compensation stabilization program. Whatever the reasons, the provisions in those collective agreements apply and still apply. I don't think anyone argues with that. When they did argue about it at one time — B.C. Hydro arguing with the Office and Technical Employees' Union part of its workforce.... The award was written in September 1976. Don Munro, who was the chairman of the arbitration board at that time, made it very clear — and it has never been challenged — in his judgment that the contract is in place even though the expiry date has passed. If we need to have further discussion about it we can do that as well during committee. But I just don't think there is any issue.... The only things I can find are requests by ICBA and one other organization that this kind of thing be done. I have not heard any overwhelming requests from the Employers' Council or from other employer groups, from individual employers, from trade unions, from professionals in the field, from staff people in the Labour ministry, from the director or the board of the employment standards branch. Nowhere has there been a request for provisions in legislation that would allow a bureaucrat appointed by the minister — an order-in-council appointment — upon the request of an interested party, to rule null and void provisions of a collective agreement. Why? I don't understand why that is needed. It is such a fundamental issue, such a fundamental point that I would have thought the minister would have addressed it, if only briefly, in his opening remarks. He didn't. What is the motivation? What has been the motivation? Why do it? Beyond that, are we really sure that this says what the minister appears to indicate in cross-fire across the floor earlier in the debate — that it does only apply in a very narrow way?

You can only read what you have in front of you. What the section does, first of all, is to repeal the entire section 2 of the Employment Standards Act and create a new section. Any reference to the old section is, as I read legislation, irrelevant. We've got a brand-new section. It will replace, in its entirety, that section and replace it with this: it is entitled " Standards." The implication there is that standards include a lot of things. Standards include wages. Minimum wage is a labour standard. Not in this act.

You have to go through all the legalese to get through the thing. This is a committee stage debate and we are going to have to go back and forth on this question at that time. I do hope the minister will save us some time in committee by taking a moment or two in concluding second reading debate to explain how the limitations on the power of the director are contained. Some people I talk to suggest that the only provisions that the director can rule no longer apply in the collective agreement are those provisions in the table. I don't read it that way. I don't see any wording that leaves that impression. I don't think it should be in there. Why does the director of labour standards require the power to rule null and void certain provisions of a collective agreement after it has expired, when everybody in the business agrees that a collective agreement is still in force even though the expiry date may have passed and a new collective agreement has not been signed? Everyone agrees that the old collective agreement remains in force until that time. The new collective agreement may contain some retroactive features that take it back to the expiry date; nevertheless, the provisions of the agreement continue in force and in effect.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: That arbitration I was referring to is often referred to as the bridging issue. I don't know all the terminology; I don't do enough arbitrations to be thoroughly familiar with it. That award said that in effect there is a

[ Page 2230 ]

bridging period: from the date of the expiry of the contract to the date of the signing of a new contract, the old expired contract applies and the new contract can apply in a retroactive fashion if it is agreed to.

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

I guess my question is: for what purpose is this Section in there? Why is it necessary for the employment standards director to have the ability, on the application of any interested party....? Is there a good reason for it? Is it a way to give more protection? Is this a way, in the case where collective agreement is weak, perhaps maternity leave, to say the old collective agreement wasn't very strong on maternity leave and we are going to give you the stronger provisions of the employment standards by declaring null and void that section of your contract? Why would you do that? With this law in place, if the minister's words about allowing the collective bargaining process to take place are to be believed, then that should be something for the parties to determine. They know what the implications of having bad language are, so they will resolve them if they can. I can't find any motivation or justification or argument in favour of this provision. It is in a sense like debating with a phantom, with a ghost. I don't know what argument I should be arguing against, because I haven't heard one.

I haven't taken as much time as I would have liked to prepare for this debate — there are a few other things going on these days — but I have taken a little bit of time, and I do have some feel for the issues. I can't find any request, motivation, argument or justification, any reason, anything to suggest why that provision needs to be in there. I just don't understand it.

I don't know, when the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) was interjecting earlier, whether he was referring to section 7(a) as a bridging feature. You might do that. That is the problem with printed second reading debate; we can't find out what we mean when we interject. Even in rereading that, trying to anticipate what it was the Attorney-General was meaning, I don't see what the point is.

Moving on to section 5, which is in effect section 12 of the Employment Standards Act, it is an entirely new process relating to procedures by which orders can be sought and given and enforced. I have some not fundamental, not serious philosophical, but nevertheless considered objections to the way this particular section is developed. According to 12(2), where an officer — presumably we are talking about an industrial relations officer — is unable to resolve a complaint in accordance with this section, he may issue an order in writing requiring the obligor to pay forthwith to the director any wages, etc. I have some concern that because there isn't an Employment Standards Board any longer, there is an immense amount of discretion left in the hands of an individual out in the field. For the most part they are already overworked, at least the ones that I end up dealing with. I don't want to suggest that any public servant would ever find himself in a position where he may be subject to influence or subject to pressures, but the reality of life is that that can occur and does occur once in a while. I wonder whether an officer living in a small community who socializes with and is part of a community with friends who happen to include an employer who may well be the subject of an investigation.... It is very easy under this section for that officer just to not bother to issue an order. He "may" issue an order in writing. If he doesn't, what recourse is available? In my view, without getting too technical, because it really is a technical bill, the opportunities don't seem to be clear enough or available to an aggrieved party who feels that the order should have been issued but wasn't. What does that aggrieved party do in that case? I'm not sure that this act properly deals with that question.

[1:45]

The question of what you might want to call "user fees" is dealt with later on in this section, in 12(4). I'm not opposed in principle to the concept of user fees in collecting unpaid wages. I don't object to there being some penalty. I think it's very logical. But I'd like to compare the approaches that are taken in the bill and in the current legislation. Rather than reading it from the legislation, I'm taking it from Jim Dorsey's book in the Self-Counsel series which deals with employee-employer rights in British Columbia. He does a pretty fair job of defining what people's rights are under this legislation. He talks about the Employment Standards Board. In one part of that discussion he writes as follows:

"In addition to any other authority the board has, it may order a party to pay costs or expenses to another party, except the director or representative, including compensation for wages lost as a result of attending a hearing. This is an important thing to consider when deciding whether to ask for, and therefore require, the board to hold a hearing. Costs and expenses may include lawyers, cost of travel and meals, etc. When the board makes an order for the payment of money, the director must issue and confirm a certificate for the amount. It may then be used to collect the money as unpaid wages may be recovered."

That's a narrow kind of fee that doesn't necessarily find its way back into the provincial treasury. I think I could go along with the concept that it should find its way back into the provincial treasury. But the problem that is generated by the legislation is that when you don't have the Employment Standards Board any more, which can make judgments about costs or about the appropriate penalty or fee for violation of the act, you then have to choose some other mechanism. But what mechanism was chosen?

The minister chose to say that a minimum $100 would have to be paid, and that if the amount outstanding is more than $1,000 then the amount would be equal to 10 percent of the outstanding amount. An argument over unpaid wages in the amount of $50,000 or even into the hundreds of thousands of dollars is not unusual. Let's take the small end of the scale, the $50,000 unpaid wage bill. The employer in that case is talking about paying $5,000 for having broken the law, in effect, for whatever reason, by not paying wages to his or her employees. As I say, I don't disagree with the idea of some cost being involved, but the arbitrary provision of 10 percent across the board seems arbitrary, with all the failings that come with arbitrary measures. It may well be that circumstances would suggest that in some cases, repeated violations merit a different treatment. It may be, in other cases, that economic realities in the community hit a very fair employer in a particularly bad way, and they may be required to pay $5,000 or $10,000 or some larger amount as a penalty, in effect, for bad economic times. There are a variety of things that could happen. And while I don't hold very much brief with employers who don't pay their employees wages that have been worked for and earned, I do think that there are different circumstances and different penalties or costs —

[ Page 2231 ]

whichever way you want to view this provision — that the ability on the part of some reasonably constituted authority.... I would argue that it should be an employment board. Their ability to vary the amount should be contained in the legislation. I don't like the arbitrary 10 percent.

I hope, in passing, that because of the size of the penalty we will have less need for enforcement of unpaid wages. That's probably the intention of the drafters of the legislation; if so, it's a good intention. But I wonder if there doesn't need to be some mechanism for a more subjective view of the question.

Section 13 — again, we get a brand-new section — I really don't understand. Maybe it's because I haven't spent enough time reading this thoroughly. I will admit to....

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member is not engaging in debate on the principle of the bill. It's a very long-standing tradition of the House that you do not debate a point twice. I suppose the Chair has been lenient in this regard in permitting the member to go through clause-by-clause debate of the bill instead of debating the general principle. That having been indulged in, I would think that in this particular bill there wouldn't be debate in committee, section by section. If, however, it is the decision that clause-by-clause discussion will be permitted during committee, instead of voting immediately on each section, then the member should stick strictly to the principle of the bill and desist immediately from discussion of the individual sections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member, for your counsel in that regard. I'm sure the member will use that as guidance for the rest of the debate.

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Clearly the bill before us is a wide-ranging bill. As you have noted before, Mr. Speaker, in addressing these kinds of points of order, one member's analysis of what is indeed embodied in the principles of a particular bill is quite different than another member's interpretation.

I've been listening intently to the member for North Island, and unlike many other speakers in debates on many bills before the House, he has unstintingly and unswervingly discussed Bill 26, and only Bill 26, in his discussions. Rather than being attacked for that, Mr. Speaker, he should be complimented for his unusual dedication to the many facets of Bill 26.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is very complex and the member has mentioned that three or four times. I am sure that he will stick to the principle of the bill.

MR. GABELMANN: I agree with the suggestion that there has been, to a certain extent, some reference to particular sections. Interestingly, this is the last one I was coming to. Unfortunately, the minister didn't sleep quite long enough. We could have avoided that. If the minister hadn't been asleep, he would have.... If he was listening intently, while reposing, he would have heard me say very near the beginning that I think there are three or four principles in the bill. I was attempting to deal with those three or four principles.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, take one more moment on that question — on the point of order aspect of it. I remember this afternoon, in the debate on the income tax legislation, the opposition spent almost all of its time on one section of that particular bill. It was a seven- or eight-section bill, as I remember, and there were different principles contained within it, and we spent....

AN HON. MEMBER: Two.

MR. GABELMANN: There were two basic ones, yes. We spent almost all of our time — there were three really, because there was some federal language — on one section. The minister didn't concern himself then with relevancy or....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Did he? Does he do it all the time?

Back to the legislation. If the minister is concerned that I am going to go on forever, I'm not. I have no intention of attempting to beat the record of the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson). I do intend, in a relaxed way, to take a little bit of time in talking about the legislation. I am not embarked upon a filibuster of major proportions, if only because at 2 o'clock in the morning that's somewhat difficult. I will carry on; I will make my comments more general as I wind through this particular bill.

The question of how an aggrieved individual can appeal a decision of an officer is one that I was talking about when the minister raised his point of order. I would appreciate some response from the Minister of Labour on that when he does respond.

This is the last time I'll do this, so everybody can relax. Section 13(8) — quite frankly, if the employers in this province had a good look at it, they would find it appalling. It's really quite unfair to employers. But if it is designed to improve their record in terms of compliance with employment standards, I guess I'm not going to be too critical of the section.

I want to turn to comments that have been made by various.... I'm not going to read all that I have, but I want to put into the record a few concerns that have been expressed to me by individuals, some of whom I will name; for others, I'm going to ask that their request for privacy be maintained. But I will take full responsibility for what I am saying.

One concern is that there is a very real legal question on section 2, as to how a part of the act can be deemed to be part of a collective agreement. That's a legal concern. People whom I talked to suggest that it just will not survive any legal challenge. In addition, there is the whole philosophical question as to whether or not any individual who is a citizen or resident of this province should be allowed to be covered by standards that are lower than a universal floor. We could find ourselves in situations — I don't think it would happen very often — where a trade union would not seriously treat requests from minorities within the union to take strong action to achieve certain standards for the minority within their group. I'm thinking again, as I mentioned earlier, of women and pregnancy-related leave sections.

I think that we must address the philosophical question of whether or not society believes that there should be minimum standards across the board, and that no collective group of individuals can impose a lower standard on some component of their group. For the most part, in my experience, trade unions in this province have an admirable record in that

[ Page 2232 ]

regard, and it's not a concern. I can remember that in my day I didn't do much collective bargaining, but I did the odd little bit, particularly in areas where no business agents were in place, in some small unions.

I remember once attempting to reach a collective agreement in an industry where every single one of the people, all of whom happen to have been women, did not speak English. The difficulties that are contained there in trying to....

The employer was quite obstinate. He knew he had things going his way. He was paying about half the prevailing rate. His standards were very minimal. The women who were involved in that particular small industry were totally in his hands in the sense that they needed the jobs and what some trade unions call "strawberry jam money." But for most of them it wasn't strawberry jam money; it was bread-and-butter money. To try to get them to understand questions relating to minimum standards was not that important at the time, because we had minimum standards legislation in place, but I would dread very much going back into that set of negotiations with that employer and with those employees, to try to explain to them — none of them spoke English at that time — why they needed language comparable to what is in the Employment Standards Act. It would be a virtually impossible task, and one that I think poses some fundamental philosophical questions for this Legislature to respond to.

[2:00]

1 was going to deal with the philosophical question contained in the North American approach to minimum standards versus the European approach to setting standards that really predate the general pattern in collective bargaining. I think, in view of the passing of time and the requirement on me not to be too boring, I'll pass on that particular subject.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

I had started by quoting concerns expressed by various individuals. This is a concern from a business agent in a union in the service industry in this province. Her concerns with Bill 25 are.... I will highlight them very quickly. The first difficulty, she says, arising from this bill is that the union will, in future, have to negotiate all standards. I've dealt with that issue. She says it may mean a limit on what a union can achieve in the first contract, as there is no base from which to begin. That is something that people involved in attempting to negotiate first agreements are really quite familiar with. I don't think it is an insoluble problem, but it is one that poses a further difficulty on unions in the service field who are attempting to reach first agreements. One of the interesting points she raises is that unorganized workers could, if they were organized, find themselves, at least in the first years of the collective agreement which covers them, in a worse position, because the union was unable to negotiate with the employer for standards as rich as the minimum standards in the legislation. So it could in fact be a hindrance to or an encouragement against union organization, particularly in the service industry.

She makes the point about the lapsed agreement, which I have dealt with for long enough already tonight. She makes a number of other points, of which I think some are right and others, quite frankly, are wrong. I won't pursue that one any further.

Another presentation which is very brief — just two pages and a bit from another staff representative who deals in contracts in this province that have some reliance on minimum standards — makes a number of points. The first issue he complains about is that instead of having the Employment Standards Board, with the power to issue a compulsory order of the board, the director of employment standards, who will in fact be a ministry appointee, will have discretionary power in issuing orders. He says — and this is an important point that I haven't dealt with: "Like so many other bills that were introduced, the Employment Standards Act flies in the face of the basic concept of law that has been established in Canada from its inception as a country. That concept is that legislation must reflect the rule of law, not the rule of man." Unlike the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), I haven't taught constitutional law, nor have I even taken a course in law, but I think it is generally accepted, Mr. Speaker — and you would know this — that there is a concept that has been, if not enshrined, at least accepted in this country that legislation must reflect the rule of law, not the rule of man.

What we are doing by giving the kinds of powers we give in this legislation to the director of the employment standards branch is in effect allowing that individual, who can be and probably will be politically appointed, the right to make law in certain circumstances. This staff rep goes on to say: "The facts are that Bill 26 strays from the rule of law and in its place incorporates the rule of man by way of not only the adjudicative function being vested in one person but also the fact that choosing to do nothing is also within the power of the director." I will just say, in passing, that we have a similar kind of direction in lawmaking expressed in the Human Rights Act. It is not a good direction, in my view.

He says that from all the changes to Bill 26 the provincial government will save about $100,000. The figure that I understand the Socred caucus uses is $125,000. I don't intend to quibble about the amount. In any event, whether it is a saving of $100,000 or $125,000 a year as a result of the elimination, presumably, of the board, the question really is: what price will ordinary working people have to pay for the saving of that minimal amount? If the basic thrust of the bill was to save money — and I don't believe it was — the government could have made the one amendment and eliminated the standards board. But obviously that is not the intention.

This staff representative believes that what the government is doing is, under the guise of restraint, giving a signal to all employers in British Columbia that it is no longer attacking only public sector employees but also private sector employees as well — and non-unionized workers as well as unionized. I think he overstates the case; I don't think this bill is as draconian as some others that we have. I don't like it and I'm going to vote against it, but nevertheless the fears that have been engendered in the community as a result of the package and the leaked suggested draft Labour Code have given rise to fears that individuals such as this one, who are reasonable and rational people, are quite concerned about what signals are being given by the government. He goes on but in order not to pursue the matter indefinitely, I'll leave that as well.

The Douglas and Kwantlen Faculty Association also presented a brief to me which makes the basic point about the provisions of the collective agreement not applying upon application. I've made that point and don't need to refer to it any further.

This is a researcher for a trade union, and I do want to read this particular letter; it's not that long. It's the only

[ Page 2233 ]

correspondence that I have dealing with Bill 26 that responds directly to what it is the government caucus has been saying in defence of the legislation. This particular staff person with an independent trade union in this province writes as follows. I'm quoting; therefore some names will be mentioned:

"Bennett's government says that it has no intention of bringing in anti-labour legislation and has gone on the public record to state that. We remind the public that the Bennett government also publicly stated that they had no intention of increasing hospital user fees. The simple truth is that Bills 2, 3, 11 and 26 are all vehemently anti-labour legislation. In addition, when asked about the proposed Labour Code amendments, the Bennett government refused to be specific about which amendments they were not going to bring in, and did specifically say they had every intention of politicizing the LRB."

And I won't pursue that any longer, because it's not in order.

"The amendments to the employment standards legislation are also vehemently anti-labour, both in the private and the public sector. The simple truth is that when you allow employers to negotiate collective agreement provisions that are lower than minimum standards in the areas of maternity leave, hours of work, working apparel, annual vacation or vacation pay, termination of employment, layoff or overtime, you are inviting major confrontations at the bargaining table and are attacking the workers who need the protection the most: those who are about to lose their jobs or need pregnancy leave."

Then she goes on to talk about the Labour Code, which I won't refer to.

Interestingly, without any prior consultation or preknowledge, I had brought in a couple of newspaper clippings that I was going to refer to. I don't quite know how it happened, but the Leader of the Opposition has beaten me to the Vancouver Sun story by Michael Bocking quoting Leo McGrady, a labour lawyer in Vancouver. I don't think it's necessary for me to repeat the arguments made earlier by the Leader of the Opposition, as raised by Leo McGrady. The other clipping I had brought in was the Rod Mickleburgh column in the Province on August 3 in which he talks about the employment standards bill and Tom Roper's analysis of the legislation before an Industrial Relations Management Association seminar. As I say, his view....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I might just say, in passing, Mr. Speaker, that the suggestions of me hurrying up will in fact have the opposite effect. I'm going to do this relatively quickly, but I suspect that the only result of constant interruptions of eye across the floor will be to get my back up, and I'll be here a lot longer than I might otherwise have been. So perhaps the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) could just go back to whatever it was he was doing prior to his interruptions.

I think Tom Roper's comments, because he's an expert in the field, need to be given some attention. I raised the issues earlier in terms of my own reaction, but I think his comments confirm at least that there is some serious doubt as to how section 2 will apply. Another section of Bill 26 allows the director of the employment standards branch to arbitrarily cancel collective agreements once they expire, upon application by an "interested person."

"Observed Roper: 'I don't know who "an interested person" is, but there seems to be a real potential for conflict between that section and the whole thrust of the provincial Labour Code.'" I can't believe that is what has been intended. The minister indicates it's not. If there is one thing we have to have clarified in the next little while, it's that.

[2:15]

Mr. Speaker, I literally have a dozen hours' worth of material here. I'm not going to use it all, but there are some aspects of the bill that I would like to deal with a little further. One group in this province that has been badly dealt with by this Legislature and by successive governments is farmworkers. I want to read a critique of Bill 26 which was done by the lawyer representing the Canadian Farmworkers' Union in British Columbia. Their concerns are legitimate and serious enough that they deserve to have at least one of us read them into the record. I read these comments not to delay, nor to indicate that I necessarily agree entirely with all of what is said, but simply because they have the right to have their views presented to this Legislature and to have them contained within Hansard, so that when the debate does continue on labour standards and farmworkers in this province, they will have had some opportunity to be involved.

"One of the most important changes proposed in this bill is to remove the basic principle that all standards in the Employment Standards Act are minimum standards which cannot be lowered. The new section 2 states that if a collective agreement contains any provision dealing with hours of work, overtime pay or special apparel, then all of the statutory minimums concerning hours of work, overtime pay or special apparel no longer apply. Thus, if your collective agreement has a clause about the employer providing special apparel, then all statutory guarantees of overtime pay and hours of work no longer apply."

That goes back to my earlier comments when I expressed some bewilderment at why the hours of work and overtime pay were lumped together with special apparel. Is that because some agreements do contain sections on special apparel but don't contain provisions relating to hours of work, or vice versa, and this is an attempt by the minister to catch some employees in this province? It seems an absurd reading of the legislation to suggest that if your agreement has a clause about the employer providing special apparel — it could be a whole variety of things and I won't go into the details of it — then the questions of statutory pay and overtime would no longer apply. Again, for the life of me I cannot understand why those issues would be linked. If I heard the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) correctly, he said that I read it wrong.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I may well be always wrong. Unlike some members of the House, I am prepared to admit that. It's also possible that on occasion I might be right.

When you go to the table in section 2 of the bill, hours of work, overtime or special apparel are lumped together. It's not possible that this lawyer whom I'm quoting, or my own view, which I think has been developed carefully and thoughtfully, is wrong. I think there's a mistake in the drafting of the legislation or there's some sinister motive, which

[ Page 2234 ]

really is beyond me because it would cover such a narrow section of employees in this province.

To go back to the brief:

"In such a situation, if your collective agreement does not specifically provide for time and a half for overtime, then you will not be entitled to time and a half for overtime work as you were under the old act."

That's in the event that you have some section in your collective agreement that deals with apparel.

"Similarly, if your collective agreement has any provision whatsoever concerning vacation pay, then you no longer are guaranteed the statutory minimum of two to three weeks' vacation or 4-6 percent vacation pay. Likewise, if your collective agreement discusses termination rights in any way, then you lose the statutory guarantees of two to eight weeks' notice pay; if your collective agreement discusses maternity leave at all, then you lose all of the act's maternity leave guarantees.

"Perhaps the most significant effect of changes to section 2 is that the Ministry of Labour will no longer enforce the collection of statutory overtime pay, vacation pay, severance pay, or enforce maternity leave provisions or special apparel provisions for any union member where a collective agreement of any kind is in force. Unions will now be stuck with the expense of grieving and arbitrating such matters. This is an enormous transfer of responsibility from the government to overtaxed unions."

That wouldn't be so bad if the main impact were on unions that are relatively well off and have staff resources as well as financial resources, but for the most part the implications are going to fall on new unions, small unions, unions without those kinds of financial and staff resources. In those cases, to make that kind of transfer from a societal responsibility to an individual union responsibility is something that might well be appropriate in the long term, but certainly not without first developing a consensus on the question.

If we really do believe that in order to make this society work better we need to have collective decision-making between all members of our society, and that everybody needs to work together and not to always be in a confrontation mode, then it seems to me that provisions such as this fly in the face of all of those suggestions that what we need are improved labour-management relations. By the legislation, what we're saying is that without first having a consensus developed, or at least some discussion, unions will now be forced to take on responsibilities that they never had heretofore. While that may be an appropriate thing for unions to do, the process used by this legislation of suddenly bringing it in, without the consensus being developed and without the discussions taking place, is wrong if you believe that cooperation between labour and management and government is an objective. If, on the other hand, you believe that political goals can be obtained more readily by maintaining a continuing friction and lack of working together between workers and government, or workers and employers, and you choose to continue in every way you can to exacerbate those relations, then that's something else again. But the public should be clear that while we talk here of cooperation, everything we see in terms of the legislation — and here we see it again — flies in the face of that kind of talk.

"This provision was used effectively by farmworkers in the past, and in fact it was quite helpful.

"The new section 2 also provides that where a collective agreement has expired, the director can declare that the collective agreement provisions no longer apply, even if the old collective agreement said that current wages and benefits should continue until a new collective agreement is signed. Employers may be able to use this provision in order to threaten that workers will lose hard-won wage rates and benefits if they don't sign a new collective agreement."

That's a point I have not made heretofore in this debate. It gives employers an awesome weapon in the negotiating process that takes place prior to the expiry of an agreement. I'll reread that sentence, because I think it's really quite a significant one:

"Employers may be able to use this provision in order to threaten that workers will lose hard-won wage rates and benefits if they don't sign a new collective agreement. For example, an employer who is paying his employees $10 per hour can, at the expiry of the collective agreement, apply to the director for such a declaration, and if he gets such a declaration can announce that all wages will be reduced to $3.65 an hour...."

The Minister of Labour, were he in the House, would shake his head at that and deny that that's the implication of this legislation; but this is yet another case where a lawyer who works in the field on a daily basis tells me that that is in fact the implication of the legislation.

"...until a new collective agreement is signed, in spite of the fact that the old collective agreement provided for continuation of the old wage rates until the new collective agreement was signed.

"Section 19 of the act has been changed and no longer holds directors and officers of the corporation liable for unpaid severance pay if the corporation has gone into bankruptcy or receivership, or is subject to a section 178 Bank Act action. Just another tidbit for free-enterprisers and another right gone from workers.

"Section 80(2) has been added to limit a worker's recovery of wages to either (1) wages payable in the last six months before the complaint; or (2) if the job is over, the wages for the last six months of employment. This undercuts the claims of workers who have been deprived of statutory holiday pay and vacation pay over a period of years. It is also significant for farmworkers and other workers who sometimes are owed more than six months' worth of wages."

Yet another principle in this bill, Mr. Speaker, that I haven't yet had an opportunity to devote any attention to, and I think, as has been suggested earlier, might well be more appropriate in committee.... I do hope that when we get to committee stage in this bill we won't then be told that we can't talk about these things in principle, by section, because we should have done that in second reading where we have blandishments saying that we should be more general. It's a bit of a catch-22 for those of us who want to deal seriously with legislation such as this. Going back to the brief:

"The new section 56 removes the possibility of recovering compensation for financial loss suffered by a worker denied statutory maternity leave benefits. The definition of 'wages' and section 9(2) have been changed so that the Ministry of Labour may no longer

[ Page 2235 ]

compel employers to pay collective agreement mandated payments into pension plans, insurance plans, etc. The old section 7(d) has been repealed. Employers are no longer compelled to honour a worker's assignment of wages to a bank account. The new section 12(2) increases the discretion of the initial ministry investigator looking into a wage complaint to not issue an order for wages. Under the new section 42(5) the director of employment standards can opt to reduce the statutory termination protections for a group of workers if the workers have agreed to lesser protections 'consistent with the intent' of the statutory termination provisions. The repeal of the old section 49 removes the broad range of remedies available to a worker illegally terminated. The change drops the Ministry of Labour's power to compel the employer to comply with the statutory termination provisions or to cease doing an act. The only remedy available now will be straight payment of termination pay. There will no longer be the basis of statutory argument that a person unjustly dismissed could be ordered reinstated under section 49."

[2:30]

"Section 14(3) provides for an appeal to county court from decisions of the director. Since employers have easier access to lawyers, the new provision could allow recalcitrant employers to take the dispute to a forum where they have an advantage, and could delay payment of wages further. In the same vein, the Ministry of Labour now has the option — new section 80(4) — to refuse to act on a wage claim if the worker is already seeking a remedy in court. This will discourage workers from filing court action at the same time that they go to the ministry, and will reduce the options open to a worker to seek compensation and make them more likely to cave in to the 'compromise' settlements that the ministry often forces on workers.

"In sum, one can see the common theme: the changes are all designed to take away rights from workers and to strengthen the hand of employers. That's the B.C. spirit."

Mr. Speaker, I read that quickly and I did not stop to comment because that, under the rules of the House, is appropriately committee stage debate, bit by bit, and I do intend at that time to go into some detail about each of those provisions, but I felt it was important that the views of the farmworkers....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm sorry it's boring. One of the reasons I've been speaking in a quiet monotone, Mr. Speaker, is that I've learned in this House that once you start to raise your voice, as I'm being asked to do, you tend to evoke crossfire and comments which make the House an unruly place.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bor-r-r-ring.

MR. GABELMANN: It might be a little less boring, but I would then be subject to the Chair telling me that I was out of order and what not. I don't want that to happen, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, au contraire: the Chair would undertake to maintain order in the House if you saw fit to be more entertaining in your style of delivery.

MR. GABELMANN: That's a new ruling that I wonder whether we should challenge, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: That's what you want, isn't it? You want me to raise my voice and wake up all those people who are out there sleeping with their speakers on. I can do that, Mr. Speaker, if you want me to. I could wave my arms and pretend I was the Leader of the Opposition for a moment and I could make quite a fiery speech, I suppose, if I really wanted to. Mr. Speaker, I don't really want to.

What I want to do tonight is to try to put in a serious way.... Maybe I'm too serious. Maybe I treat this forum like it's an important place or something, and maybe that's a mistake. What I wanted to do was to....

AN HON. MEMBER: You take yourself seriously.

MR. GABELMANN: I know I take myself seriously. I do. It's a bad habit. Not only my political enemies but my friends tell me that. Probably one of the reasons why my hat isn't in the ring along with some of my colleagues is that I recognize that.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: As the former Attorney-General says, that's why he's not running, too. Actually the reason he's not running is that he's much too modest.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: See what happens, Mr. Speaker, when I raise my voice?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have to come to the defence of the hon. member who has the floor. The respite was somewhat refreshing, but now let's give the hon. member an opportunity to continue with his debate.

MR. GABELMANN: Now back to the boring stuff, eh?

I'm going to leave all of the rest of the material that I have and, as I said a moment ago, deal specifically with a lot of it in committee stage. I believe — and I'm going to conclude with these comments — that while this bill is not the most heavy-handed of the legislative package, it raises some very serious questions. I don't believe the minister fully understands what is contained in the bill, and I think that's clear from his introductory comments. I think the questions contained in section 2 relating to the ability of the director of employment standards to say that a contract or parts of a contract — and that's not clear — are no longer in force is inappropriate. The turning over of power that formerly was in the hands of the Employment Standards Board and is now in the hands of the director is, I think, a mistake inasmuch as we are giving to one individual powers that are more appropriately contained in the hands of a board, which is less subject to influence, I would suggest....

[ Page 2236 ]

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Not necessarily, that's right; but possibly. The whole process of allowing individual officers to not refer matters further on up the process at their own discretion raises, I think, some serious questions.

Having said that, I think I will at this point cease and desist. I hope that sometime later today or tomorrow or Saturday or Monday — whenever we get to the closing of this debate in second reading — the minister will in a serious way deal with some of the concerns that I expressed to him, particularly in the first half hour or so of my comments, and that we will have an opportunity following that in committee stage to deal further.... I seriously implore the minister to give consideration to amendments to this bill, to make sure that it is no longer ambiguous and doesn't give undue powers to individuals who really don't need those powers in our society.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move the House do now adjourn.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I'm not wrong, we've already entertained that motion and we've had no intervening business.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I note that one of the previous Speakers in the chair indicates that, in fact, at 12:48 we did have a similar motion. Accordingly, hon. members, pursuant to standing order 44 I decline to entertain that motion.

MR. GABELMANN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the motion at 12:48 was that the debate be adjourned. I deliberately didn't move that motion. I moved that the House do now adjourn.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, my understanding is that the motion made at 12:48 was in fact a second adjournment of debate, and I would suggest that it....

One moment, please.

Hon. members, the Chair is of the opinion that to entertain the motion put by the hon. member would in effect be an abuse of the rules of the House. Having come to that opinion, I decline to put that motion to the House. Accordingly, the Chair will entertain the next speaker on Bill 26.

MR. D'ARCY: I have a number of concerns regarding this bill, which is in many respects an omnibus bill regarding labour standards. Before I get into my remarks on the principle of Bill 26, I would like to compliment the member for North Island. We have had a great many speeches on different bills in this House, but rarely have we heard such a detailed analysis of a particular bill delivered so carefully over a period of time, without repetition or redundancy. I was not terribly impressed with the rather cavalier attitude that some members on both sides of the House took while that member was delivering his carefully modulated analysis of the bill.

I hope I'm not going over previously covered ground, but I'm going to speak not only about concerns that have been expressed by constituents and individuals, both employers and employees that I know, but to some degree as well from personal experience. I would hope that the minister, when he closes debate, will give us some insight into how and why he strongly feels that this kind of legislation and the changes embodied in it are needed. Certainly we on this side of the House are not aware that substantive changes of the nature that we have here were needed in the Labour Standards Act. Obviously the minister felt that way, and that's why he brought in the changes.

One of the concerns I have about the principles of the bill are the changes regarding back wages and benefits to employees, particularly of small subcontracting firms. I think many members are aware that in the resource industries of the province in particular there are occasions when perhaps a large corporation, even a Crown corporation, will want clearing done for rights-of-way, reservoirs, highways or whatever, and they will employ a major contractor who very often employs a number of subcontractors. I have had personal experience with friends and even businessmen who have had the problem where they in good faith entered into an agreement.... They thought they were dealing with an organization that was large, perhaps a multinational resource company or a Crown corporation, such as B.C. Hydro, perhaps even a ministry of the Crown, such as the Ministry of Highways, only to find that the people they had been working for, either immediately their work was completed or often slightly before, suddenly left town and were nowhere to be found. So even if you had a sympathetic Labour ministry.... It is difficult to get blood from a stone, to use an old expression. It's even more difficult if you can't even find the stone. In many cases, under legislation that had been on the books for many years — I'm not even talking about recent changes, but legislation on the books for many years — it was possible ultimately to obtain redress from the larger companies or corporations involved, who ultimately then had to chase down the small people who had perhaps not acted as honourably as they might have.

[2:45]

There are other parts of the bill which to some degree take the overriding view of government, the view which I always thought government had in labour relations and negotiations and arbitrations and grievances: the responsibility that the Crown traditionally has had to ensure there would not be a breakdown in negotiations. We know very well that where confrontation occurs in labour relations, and when people take fixed positions, what very often happens is that it becomes very difficult for either side — either the local union involved or the employer — to move back once they get into an entrenched position. I suppose it might be said that mediation is a state of mind. Just as one would often say that you can't really convince somebody who needs some sort of help that they should accept that help unless they themselves realize that, I think the same can be said regarding labour relations. I'm not suggesting that the government intervene in any way prematurely; I'm simply saying that that mind-set out there, in the public interest of proper relations, needs to be avoided. I'm somewhat concerned about some changes that we have here, which we will deal with in greater detail in committee stage, that could affect that,

Again, over a period of time — I suppose we could call it labour relations evolution — there have become, rightly or wrongly depending on your point of view, provisions in B.C. statutes, particularly this statute, regarding statutory holidays: what days should be considered to be statutory holidays, how many, and the basic responsibility of employers and employees on those days. Now I know that those provisions are not removed entirely by this bill, but some of the definitions surrounding them are changed. There seems to be more permissiveness in terms of designations and changes than existed before. Perhaps we're going to find out why that

[ Page 2237 ]

is. Perhaps the scope of statutory holidays and the flexibility could be downsized — to use one of the government's favourite terms — and perhaps it could be raised. In any event, I think that employers and employees out there need to have better reassurance as to specifics in this regard.

It was eloquently raised by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and others, but I have a concern that with the minimum protections removed if a collective agreement refers to certain elements which are covered or had before this bill been covered by the Labour Standards Act, rather than keeping labour relations and the provisions of contracts on perhaps not the highest possible denominator, because that would clearly be unfair to both sides, but on an even-steven level, we find that we are going — in some respects, where there are substandard contracts in place — to the lowest possible common denominator. I know the minister will probably argue that I shouldn't put words in his mouth, but I suspect he's going to argue that that's up to the private sector and the private sector unions if they wish to negotiate those provisions in. Surely we could have had some notice, some consultation and some discussion that would give both employers and employees the opportunity, as contracts expire — and we know, of course, that contracts don't all expire at the same time; some are one-, two-, three-year and there's occasionally even a four-year contract — that at least the old provisions would stay in place relative to this Labour Standards Act, as sort of a grandfather clause in specific instances, and allow people the opportunity to renegotiate.

There is going to be a lot of negotiating away from the lowest common denominator situations in many of the provisions of the Labour Standards Act, both new and old, over the next few months, if that has not occurred already. Once again, I think it is tremendously important in British Columbia today — in British Columbia at any time, but certainly in the present economic context — that the likelihood of labour management misunderstanding creating economic disruption be minimized. There's no question that this province cannot afford strikes and lockouts. It cannot afford work-to-rule campaigns. It cannot afford investors and management making decisions to not modernize or expand because they are concerned about an unresolved labour relations situation. I'm going to return to that under other principles contained in this rather wide-ranging omnibus labour relations bill.

One of the other areas that I have concern about in terms of potential fractiousness: I do have quite a concern about the interested-party interventions that the unions have expressed concern about. One of the difficulties over the years that the automobile industry had — I think it has changed somewhat now — in dealing with the UAW was that that union traditionally had a no-contract, no-work stipulation, and they simply didn't work when the contract ran out. We know, in British Columbia, that the overwhelming majority of collective agreements are renegotiated peacefully — that is, without a strike or a lockout. We also know, fortunately, that most strikes or lockouts are of relatively short duration. But most contracts are not resolved until the old contract has run out, easily over a period of weeks, but sometimes over a period of months. Occasionally it goes beyond a year. However, even in those cases, many of these disputes are — I'm not going to use the term "settled amicably" — settled without an economic disruption.

With this provision for interested party intervention to bypass some of the continuation clauses of the Labour Code — and nobody is really sure how that is going to work, but it would appear that this would override certain sections of the Labour Code — we may find a situation where a trade union, and even on occasion management, could precipitate a work stoppage or a cessation of production, perhaps in an important industry, with a number of private sector suppliers dependent on that industry. That stoppage could he precipitated by the fact that one party — particularly the union side — would not want to give management the opportunity to make an interested party intervention application and would shortly — or certainly more precipitously in the expiry of the contract — precipitate a work stoppage. That is a concern that has been expressed not just by the trade union sector but by a number of concerned people from management as well. Certainly, in a major contract agreement that was made earlier this year, involving Cominco and the United Steel Workers, unfortunately there was a short strike of about a week, but that dispute was settled. It is quite possible that had there been a concern about interested party intervention, we could have had a longer strike, one that started sooner, and would not have been settled in such a short time. We all know that the loss of that major non-ferrous smelting and refining and fertilizer industry would have had a tremendous impact on provincial revenue, transportation and provincial taxation. It is tremendously important that the government ensure that collective bargaining take place in good faith as much as possible. Anything which interferes with that has to be looked at with some skepticism. We're hoping that the minister, when he makes regulations and lays down policies for his director of the labour standards branch, keeps those considerations to the fore.

Another concern I have is that we could get an even wider difference in the provisions of labour-management agreements between strong, militant bargaining units and strong unions and the smaller ones involving bargaining units which perhaps have a much more frequent turnover of employees, as well as not the same backup resources. I'm very concerned that in the entire level of labour management negotiations in this province, particularly as more and more of the economy becomes involved in tertiary and service industries, we're going to see greater problems in this area if relatively weak bargaining units have more difficulty. I would give as an example of that the difficulties that the hotel employees and the hotels association have had with the various internal union problems over the last two or three years — court actions and so forth. Really nobody knows where they stand, either the employees or the employers. I think everybody in this chamber could sympathize with that situation. Certainly we don't want these kinds of double standards, and we don't want a situation where we have what has not too complimentarily been described as, in some cases, a trade union elite, with special working, living and wage conditions not enjoyed by the majority of workers and people in British Columbia.

I want to talk some more about the government's involvement through the labour standards branch in the area where we must avoid the kind of situation that results in distrust and misunderstanding — people settled so much into a mind-set that they cannot resolve their own problems. That impacts on a great many other people.

Further, Mr. Speaker, one of the changes embodied in this bill is that — and this directly affects a number of people in my own constituency, or would have affected them had it been in effect at the time.... The minister is attempting, and may be successful, under a section of this act — I won't mention it by number, because the member for Vancouver–

[ Page 2238 ]

Point Grey might object.... There is a section of this act which absolves directors and investors, in a company that has gone bankrupt or into receivership, from personal liability regarding severance pay, unpaid holiday pay and other employee benefits that may or may not even be part of a collective agreement.

I have considerable sympathy for investors in a community, who may have been arms-length or even more than arms-length investors, avoiding that kind of liability or total liability, particularly when it could be argued by a lay person that perhaps the action by the creditor — the bank, trust company or credit union — in foreclosing or putting a company into receivership was somewhat precipitous, or that there were some major concerns — shall we say civil court litigation — involving the circumstances of that takeover or foreclosure.

[3:00]

The reason this relates to this bill is that in the past there was a guarantee that the employees would get their wages, ultimately to be settled in court as to who should pay. What I would like to see, Mr. Speaker, if the minister is concerned about this — and I think he is, or he wouldn't have brought in some of these changes — is that the receiver and the company who are foreclosing also have to take some responsibility for the employees. If the case goes to court.... And I had a major concern right in the community of Trail. It was a car dealership — I don't think it's really here or there what sort of a company it was — and it had 70 or 80 employees. We find that even though, under the law of the province, the employees are entitled to these back benefits, which they worked for and which nobody has questioned they should receive, the fact is that because the question as to who should pay is before the courts, they have not received these benefits.

I hope the minister will relate to this — because he knows; I believe he's originally from the province of Alberta — if he remembers that one of the important things that Social Credit stood for, at least in Alberta — and I think in B.C., as I understood it — was to stand up for the little guy when he was being dumped on by the large chartered banks in this country. I know the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has talked about this principle on many occasions: when you're dealing with a chartered bank, the little guy is almost anybody; it might be somebody that we normally consider to be a major concern. I fully realize that there are overlapping jurisdictions here.

There are questions of civil litigation and overlapping jurisdictions as far as the federal Bank Act goes, but there's also a provincial responsibility, because it's under provincial jurisdiction under both our old and new constitution that the province shall make laws and regulations regarding the payment of wages and benefits.

So while I think the minister has concerns and the right thoughts, I think he could have moved to make sure that all people have a responsibility to see that the back wages and benefits are paid, and if the various litigants want to fight about who has the greater responsibility, or all the responsibility, they can do that later in the courts. Perhaps we might ultimately need a fund to be set up similar to the travel agents' liability fund or the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund, where we make sure that the employees get their benefits, and the question of who is directly responsible and in what proportion can be settled later. Hopefully the lawyers won't end up with most of the money.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister once again — and I join with other members here — to give some explanation as to why it's important for him to have this apparel clause. Is he relating to dress codes — improper clothing — and are we talking about anybody forcing it on employers or employees? Are we talking about safety and comfort? Because in the best interests of everyone, safety and comfort are absolutely paramount in the workplace? Certainly we have plenty of examples in this province where there has been an abuse of apparel requirements by both employees and employers, and there are plenty of instances where employees have made a perhaps casual but correct decision that was far more important than the decisions made by government.

Dealing with the principles embodied here, I have a concern that, with the changes the minister is proposing to this chamber — and I don't believe there are any amendments on the order paper — employers will take a very hard line on employment standards when they are in agreements which are inferior to those which are already in the act. I feel that negotiations are going to be more difficult because of this, that settlements will be more difficult and that there will be more unresolved provisions. I suppose that we've all had experience, both in our own constituencies and in others, in how difficult it can be to get a first contract when a bargaining unit is newly certified, particularly if it's a new concern.

What we see here is the possibility that every renegotiated contract could have many of the aspects of a new contract, with all of the problems that that does imply. I suppose, to use the accounting buzz-phrase of a few years ago, we have the potential for zero-base negotiations. This flies in the face of the realization that every time a collective agreement is renegotiated every year — or every two, three, four years or whatever — there are many aspects of it which really don't need to be changed, or only need to be changed very slightly. In other words, there is an accumulative body of appropriate matter relative to that particular operation, company and group of employees with the correct provisions, protections and flexibilities for both sides, and a large part of renewing a collective agreement is, in fact, fine-tuning of old collective agreements. We could well see, in many cases, a rush by one side or the other to remove provisions that were all already there. I suspect — perhaps this is a bias I have — that it's going to be more often by management than by the union, but certainly there are potential abuses of this clause as well.

Once again, the minister can argue that that's free collective bargaining, or that government should not be interfering, but, Mr. Speaker, in the public interest, as I said earlier, I believe it's important that an atmosphere be maintained both in the private and the public sector which is going to protect the public interest from economic and commercial disruptions due to work stoppages, work-to-rule campaigns or lockouts which need not have occurred. I'm not concerned about responsible bargaining units, responsible trade unionists, and I'm not concerned about responsible employers. But in cases where a bargaining body on either side of the table may want to take advantage of a situation, someone could take an obstructionist approach to delay the progress towards a new agreement, and use this section to have various provisions of the old agreement wiped out pending an official settlement. I don't think that that's a forward step in the province of B.C.

[ Page 2239 ]

In that regard, I want briefly to quote a statement from Bill Hamilton. This was about the time he was stepping aside from his long and distinguished position with the Employers' Council of British Columbia. You know, we can debate in this House whether or not Bill 26 represents substantive changes, but in my view some of its provisions.... Some of them are improvements, and I'm going to be getting to those in a minute; I want to compliment the minister in those regards, if he's listening on the blower somewhere. But Bill Hamilton urged the new minister — this was the member for Langley when he was just appointed — not to make changes in the province's labour legislation. He said: "That would be the wrong thing. It's important to have a feel for the job. Besides, our labour legislation has worked remarkably well because it's pretty much bipartisan." That was from the Employers' Council. He said, "pretty much bipartisan," which means obviously that he does feel there may be need for improvements. I'm sure everybody would agree that no statute is perfect and could have some improvements, and depending on their own personal interests they'll have different ideas on what those improvements might be. But I would remind the minister that while he may not have wanted to listen to concerns expressed by the leaders of organized labour, I hope he would at least pay some concern here and not move precipitously either on this act or on other labour legislation which has not had changes introduced to this House, at least not as yet.

Mr. Speaker, I said a few minutes ago that I wanted to talk about some areas — I hope I'm not in contradiction of colleagues in these regards — which I think are an improvement in the old Act, and I compliment the government on taking these actions. I believe the concept of requiring a deposit when an employer wishes to contest an enforcement order of back wages — a refundable deposit, I might note, Mr. Speaker — is an important step; it avoids the frivolous, or is likely to discourage the frivolous contesting of wage payment and benefit payment orders that the director has made. Refundable, I might note, only if the appellant — the employer in this case — is successful. I think that's an important and valuable addition.

Another change which I feel is an improvement, although it's perhaps relatively minor.... We on this side of the House like the opportunity to express a positive view occasionally on some aspects of government legislation. Certainly the provisions that protect an employee from being terminated or fired, at least in the private sector, without termination benefit — which exists perhaps even under common law, let alone under the Labour Standards Act or under collective agreement — are an improvement. Before, an employer could, under certain circumstances, simply lay off employees and subsequently terminate them; this protects employees and ensures they get proper notice, proper severance pay, and that the employer has proper responsibilities to employees who are being terminated, without those employees having to litigate the situation. So I think that is an improvement.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about changes which reduce the likelihood that a woman who becomes pregnant can recover loss of wages and benefits to the same extent as she could before. While some recourse is still there for pregnant women who may suffer financial loss of wages, in that the existing law says an employer must reinstate her or pay her any wages lost by reason of any contravention, a woman can suffer financial losses other than wages and could want damages for discriminatory treatment by an employer. Also, those losses incurred by an employer's failure to keep up its proportion of payments to pension, medical, dental and other benefit plans as required by the Act, as well as loss of seniority upon reinstatement.... A change of employment conditions upon reinstatement is also not protected by the changes here. Once again, I feel that to single out women who are in permanent employment covered by collective agreement to be picked on in this way is most unfortunate. I hope the minister is aware that there have been several landmark decisions by the Labour Relations Board, even at the federal level, regarding female employees in fairly significant job categories under federal jurisdiction.

[3:15]

Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about an employee's right for financial loss or damages resulting from contravention of the act by the employer. It notes that the employer must pay a person or employee reasonable and actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred by him by reason of the contravention. Surely if this wording was considered totally appropriate for ensuring compensation for employer contravention of the act regarding employee protection, it would also be appropriate to ensure at least this amount of compensation for employer contravention of the act regarding maternity leave. One of the things stated by speakers on the government side, and even asked for by speakers on behalf of Social Crediters, is that there should be more public input to the board. With the changes in the employment standards board as it is presently constituted.... It is interesting that the board includes two trade unionists, a farmer, a management consultant from the private sector on labour matters, and two other people appointed by the minister — selected as public input, I suppose, if we could use that rather vague term. I feel that the kind of total discretion the minister has enjoyed ........ The minister put people on there who have concerns about public input. Changes or elimination of the board would clearly seem unnecessary. As I said earlier in my remarks, we in this House are not aware of any apprehended state of demand that these changes be made, that it was unreasonable. Even Bill Hamilton said it was mostly bipartisan. Apart from apologists for the government speaking in this House, we are unaware, and so is anyone outside this chamber, of any demand that substantive changes be made.

I realize my time is almost up on this particular bill. I would have liked an opportunity to speak on it again. However, as the hour is late I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, this Chair still feels that pursuant to standing order 44 that motion would be adjournment and an abuse of the rules of the House, and I will decline to put the question.

MR. D'ARCY: On your judgment, Mr. Speaker, which is not a ruling, I would note that under the normal standing orders of this House — and I realize we are in extraordinary state of debate at this time — the House does sit two forenoons from 10 to 12 and in the afternoons for four hours, and three hours on Friday. In other words, the normal sittings of the House are from two to four hours long under standing orders. It is nearly three hours since this motion has been considered. I know Mr. Speaker is not going to change his interpretation of standing orders in this instance, but I would hope that in future he would consider the normal length of a

[ Page 2240 ]

sitting of the House in making these judgments as to whether or not to put questions of adjournment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A ruling by Speaker Davidson just a couple days ago indicated that the House must be tested to express itself on adjournment, and I don't believe we can do it at this point.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the House has some control over its procedure. It isn't entirely in the hands of the Chair. I don't recall that there has been any order that this House do adjourn. It is now 20 minutes after 3 o'clock in the morning. The motion that the House adjourn is a perfectly reasonable one to be put at this time. The idea that the Chair should say in its wisdom that such a motion is not acceptable because it's an abuse of the House.... To make that motion to adjourn the House at 3:20 in the morning is an abuse of the House?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. MACDONALD: That may be the will of the House. The will of the House may be to continue the sittings, but to say we are denied the right to express that will is to make the Legislature the prisoner of the Chair. I challenge that ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's not a ruling, hon. member...

MR. MACDONALD: It certainly is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: ...it's from standing order 44. It is specifically stated and has been stated many times in this House, and in particular in the last few days.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On the same point of order, if the second member for Vancouver East wishes to entertain a debate on this particular issue, let him take the normal course provided for under the standing orders and introduce a substantive motion with two days' notice, and I think we might be pleased to debate that kind of a question.

MR. MACDONALD: In reply to that facetious point of order, it is now suggested that if somebody wants to move the adjournment of the House, he should give two days' notice of that motion. I've never heard anything more ridiculous in my life, and this is from a former Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that this ruling is the result of trying to give the members some sleep. That's a perfectly understandable humane motion, but it's a violation of the rights of parliament not to be able to convene or adjourn by its will.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't shout.

MR. MACDONALD: I'll certainly shout. At 3:20, parliament has a right to adjourn if its will so decides, and that's by majority vote of the members, not by the dictate of the Chair. This reduces the rules of parliament to an absurdity where we've lost control. Will the Speaker now convene parliament, adjourn it and set its hours? I've never heard anything more ridiculous in my life.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll just refer the hon. second member for Vancouver East to standing order 44.

1 recognize the hon. member for Alberni on the debate.

MR. SKELLY: It's unfortunate that we couldn't have an adjournment on this debate, to get the Premier out of bed and up into the House where he could listen to the debate and be stimulated by it.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Who is that gentleman who's heckling me from the Sergeant-at-Arms' chair, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll tell you what: I'll ask the members to heckle from their places if they're going to heckle and the member for Alberni to relate his remarks to the bill.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I think it was clear over the years that there was a definite need for changes in the employment standards legislation in this province, but it's unfortunate that rather than making a progressive step forward in employment standards legislation, this government should see fit simply to mark time or move backwards in time, as they're doing under the current bill. I think any member of the Legislature or anyone who's had experience in the field of the problems that develop between employees and employers has become aware over years that there is a need for improvement. Those of us who do a tremendous amount of this type of work through our constituency offices in order to help our constituents, I think, will not find any kind of salvation or assistance in this bill to help our constituents establish a better relationship between them and their employers or get better protection from arbitrary actions by employers.

So we assume that new legislation would improve the conditions of labour in this province and improve the legal framework which protects wages, in terms of employment, holidays, hours of work, the exploitation of children and that type of thing. Unfortunately this bill does virtually nothing to improve those conditions.

I've appeared on occasion before the old Labour Standards Board on behalf of constituents and have found that there were a number of problems that needed to be addressed by the legislation, and I'd like to give you an example. One of my constituents, a certified electrician, was a Greek immigrant who came from Greece to Vancouver and could not become certified in his trade in British Columbia because of problems with our trades qualifications legislation. But he did become a projectionist and was given what they call a limited certificate. Under a limited certificate you can only work on one type of equipment or in one theatre, and are also required to work in one location. So his job was at the absolute discretion of the owner of that theatre. If the theatre owner wanted to get rid of him or wanted him to accept low wages or work excessive hours, he could threaten him or intimidate him and say that if he didn't work long hours or for low pay, he would lift his limited projectionist's licence, and as a result this person would be on the streets.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was crazy.

[ Page 2241 ]

MR. SKELLY: Well, he may have been crazy, but let me carry on. As a result of the joint operation of the employment standards legislation and the projectionists' licensing legislation, this person was stuck in a corner and forced to work long hours, to do things that weren't part of his job description and to accept low wages. In fact, for a good part of the time he wasn't paid at all.

[3:30]

One thing that was done inadequately by the Ministry of Labour, I suppose because they did not have the legislative mandate to do it, was to educate workers as to what they were required to do in order to take a case before the Labour Standards Board. This person, for example, neglected to keep a record on a calendar of his hours of work and the amount of money he had been paid. Most workers show up on the job. This worker was an immigrant from Greece. Most people aren't aware that they should keep a record of their hours of work, their wages received, the amount of overtime, etc., to keep evidence of this, because they rely on their employer to keep that information. The employer has the bookkeepers, and it is generally considered to be the employer's responsibility. In fact, under the act, it is.

In this case, when we appeared before the Labour Standards Board, the employer came with a ledger that had erasures in it. Certain parts of it were inked out, pasted over, yet that was considered evidence that the employer had in fact paid wages to this person, and also that the hours that were disputed were not hours worked by this person. This person didn't keep his hours worked on a calendar or scraps of paper, etc. He didn't have sufficient evidence to back up his case. As a result, after all his efforts, he was ruled against by the Labour Standards Board. So what I'm pointing out is that the legislation does not give the ministry a mandate to educate workers as to what their rights are and what they should do in order to protect their rights. Now the legislation is being changed further to erode those rights, It's unfortunate in a province that should have modern, progressive legislation to protect its employees, especially those who are not protected by a collective agreement. Instead, we're moving backwards in time in this legislation. So it's unfortunate that that's happening.

There is a concern — the minister clearly doesn't have the concern, because he wrote to one of my constituents about it — on the part of a number of lawyers and people involved in the field of labour relations that where a collective agreement is silent on a certain issue, such as termination, severance pay or maternity leave provisions, the minima established under labour standards legislation will apply. Many unions and employers have been negotiating on that basis and understanding for years and years. I'm not sure that they were correct in doing so, but many felt they did not need severance provisions in the collective agreement because those provisions were included in labour standards legislation. But the new legislation seems to state that if those provisions are not included in the collective agreement, where a collective agreement is in effect, there will be no minimum standards whatsoever. That's an unfortunate change, because as legislation is drafted and comes into the House, we expect constant improvement in that legislation and in the protection of workers.

This bill reverses that progressive improvement in the standard of labour. Now it's necessary for workers bound by a collective agreement to negotiate those clauses — severance, termination, holiday pay and other provisions — into the contract. It may even be possible for the contract to specify minimum provisions that are lower still than the minimum specified in the labour standards legislation. It's also possible that in the bargaining process employees may be forced to trade off wage rates for conditions of work that are less than the minimum conditions spelled out in the employment standards legislation. I'm not sure if this is the case, but some labour lawyers are saying that this is so.

These changes in the Employment Standards Act open to employers the opportunity not only to reduce benefits under a collective agreement, but also to reduce them below the minimum standards that prevailed under the Employment Standards Act. That's an unfortunate provision in this legislation as well, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the minister, if that's a wrong impression, can correct the impression, but a number of experts in the field have said that that is the case.

I'm also concerned about the provision in section 2 which, after the expiry of a collective agreement, allows an interested party to request that the employment standards legislation prevail. It's been a tradition, especially in the forestry unions which are strongly represented in my constituency, that if there's no contract, there's no work. Over the years since 1946 it's been a tradition with the IWA that.... It's a slogan: if there's no contract, there's no work.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: They don't have a contract now, but these are tough times. It's been a tradition and a demand — and an attempt — by that union over the years to make sure that negotiations reach a speedy conclusion and that their members are working under a contract. Right now it's possible under this legislation for an interested party to approach the ministry and have the terms and the wages of IWA members lowered to the minimum wage of $3.65 an hour. That's possible right now if this legislation were passed; it simply doesn't make sense, this type of provision in this type of legislation.

Also, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that concerns me is that the deck is always stacked against the unions negotiating in forest industry agreements. It's stacked in this way: the Ministry of Forests doesn't put any pressure on the companies to reach a speedy conclusion to negotiations and to sign a collective agreement. If, as a result of labour problems, they aren't able to achieve their annual allowable cut requirements, for example, those cut requirements are forgiven by the Ministry of Forests. The blame is placed on labour problems. Now if the Ministry of Forests instructed those companies negotiating in the industry that they must live up to their annual allowable cut requirements and that there will be no excuse for deviating from the requirements other than market reasons, then those companies would be forced to negotiate and arrive at a collective agreement more speedily than they do now. Because they know they can be forgiven their obligations by the Ministry of Forests, they don't have to bargain in good faith and arrive at a collective agreement or conclusion to bargaining.

In addition, we add a new provision which allows an interested party to intervene and to cut down the terms and conditions of employment in the forest industry to the minimum that applies under the employment standards legislation. So it's another axe hanging over the heads of workers in the forest industry in addition to all those other conditions

[ Page 2242 ]

that favour the employers in the collective bargaining process. It's a dangerous piece of legislation from that point of view, and one that threatens not to improve the standards of employment and of work in this province, but to undermine those standards and to cause further confrontation during negotiations in the forest industry.

In the current economic climate, Mr. Speaker, that is something that this province cannot bear. It's an injection of a new device into negotiations, and if we're concerned about labour peace in this province, then it shouldn't be injected. So I'm concerned about that and what effect it will have on forest industry negotiations. Hopefully the minister will take another look at that and will consult with the people who are involved. We're talking about something like 40,000 to 50,000 people, Mr. Speaker — in good times — who could be affected negatively by that new addition in this legislation.

Many countries in Europe, especially, have fairly strict employment standards legislation and strict provisions that cover termination without cause. Special tribunals in France and West Germany and other parts of the world....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The minister talks about the courts in British Columbia, which are already overcrowded and will be further overcrowded with human rights and landlordtenant cases, so by assigning disputes to the courts the minister is creating even further problems. No. It's not that I don't trust the judges, but many people will not even have the opportunity to get to the judge, because the cost and delays are so great in getting to the....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I think he will be making the same point fairly soon. The courts are really no recourse for employees' grievances against employers. That's one of the reasons why special quasi-judicial commissions are set up, in order to give a less formal, more speedy method of dealing with worker disputes.

As the previous speaker mentioned, in going before those tribunals you're going before people experienced in that field, people who represent both employers and employees, experts in the field, labour consultants.... The minister knows the makeup of the former Labour Standards Board, so he is aware of the advantages of that board as well. Not all judges are as experienced in that field. Some are appointed because they were ex-naval officers and some of them are appointed because they have political connections in Ottawa or elsewhere. Simply having a law degree and some experience in law is not necessarily the best background for adjudicating labour disputes or problems between employers and employees around questions of payment of wages and termination.

But I was getting to the provisions that prevail in western Europe, where they have very strict legislation governing termination without cause. They do have tribunals in a number of those countries, where people who feel that they have been discriminated against or unjustifiably dismissed by their employers can go before these tribunals, and the employer must provide cause for dismissing them. The causes are fair. If the employee isn't carrying his load, it's possible to dismiss him, and if an employee shows up late for work consistently, it's possible to dismiss him. If he's taking drugs or addicted to alcohol or if there's some other problem, then it's possible to dismiss him on that basis, with certain conditions.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, I've been listening carefully, with much interest for the last little while, trying very hard to find anything that has to do with this bill. I have been unable to do so. I would ask whether the Speaker has been able to find anything relevant in this speech. It has nothing to do with termination of employees, nothing to do with taking drugs on the job, nothing to do with anything that that member has been talking about. I wonder if the Speaker would please instruct that member to speak to the bill.

[3:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the hon. minister for pointing out to the Chair what is contained in the bill and what is not contained in the bill, and I would encourage him to do so when the member appears to be straying from material that is not in the bill. I thank the minister for that. So I will advise the hon. member for Alberni that he will speak to the bill or he will discontinue his speech.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I've been making suggestions to the minister about how he could improve this bill. Surely, in a debate such as this on the principle of the bill, debate should be relatively wide-ranging, but within the limits of employment standards legislation such as the legislation that we're dealing with here.

What I was saying was that as new bills are presented, as changes are made to labour standards legislation, we should expect some improvement in those conditions around termination of employees, payment of wages.... For example, the bill mentions severance, and it's hard to pay severance without terminating an employee. In fact, I was just getting to that when the minister interrupted me — or when the member from wherever it is interrupted me from what isn't his seat.

We were talking about the much superior provisions in western Europe governing termination without cause, but also payment of wages and employee-employer relations in general. Unfortunately, under this legislation there are openings which allow employers to intimidate their employees. As an example, a fast-food chain operating in British Columbia is known for its practice of hiring young people and students who aren't covered by all the provisions of the labour standards legislation, and when they reach a certain age where they must be covered they are suddenly fired by the company.

AN HON. MEMBER: McDonald's?

MR. SKELLY: I didn't say that, Mr. Speaker. It's not an Irish name, I can tell you that.

When those employees reach a certain age, they are fired by the company, and it puts a black mark on their employment record. For a person just beginning his employment career it's not very helpful. We should expect some improvements through this legislation to protect those people from the kind of intimidation and discrimination that employers such as that one use against younger employees. But again, there's nothing in this bill that provides them with any relief, and that's one of our concerns as well.

Another change in this bill is that directors and officers of a corporation in bankruptcy are freed from any personal

[ Page 2243 ]

liability for severance pay. I believe that provision was added by the NDP government prior to 1975, allowing the labour standards branch or the payment-of-wages people to go after directors and officers for unpaid wages, holiday pay and that kind of thing. Incorporation should not be set up as an insurance provision to protect irresponsible managers and directors from the effects of this act. I've had a number of experiences assisting constituents who are attempting to obtain payment of wages which have been withheld or not paid by employers, and we've found out that the business is insolvent or in bankruptcy.

What happens first is that as a result of bad management or whatever an employer keeps up his bank loans and his payments to suppliers by robbing Peter to pay Paul; he cuts back by failing to submit his WCB premiums or his unemployment insurance premiums. He fails to make income tax payments, or fails to make provisions for holiday pay, finally not paying wages at all. I've known people who have worked for a business for months and months without any pay at all, hoping the employer's financial situation or management capabilities will improve. Finally the whole thing falls through, and the employee is unable to go after the directors or officers of the company once the business has folded. That's unfortunate, because it's not the fault of the employee that the business folds; it's generally the result of bad management. Now management can avoid the responsibility for non-payment of wages or severance pay through the protection afforded them in this act.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, there is a desperate need for improvements in the labour standards legislation in this province, as there's a desperate need for provisions in other legislation, such as the factories legislation and workers' compensation legislation, to improve safety provisions. But it seems that in this as well as in other bills the Social Credit government is taking direct aim and making a direct attack against labour and against the poorest of the poor, the least protected of workers. It's unfortunate that they've seen fit to do so, because it requires no courage on the part of the government to go after the lowest paid and the unorganized. In fact, it would make our province a little more humane and give us a little more respect in this country and in the international community if we took a stronger stand in favour of those who work for their wages at the very lowest levels of protection.

Another aspect of this legislation is that this government seems to take a strong position in favour of ensconcing property rights in the constitution. One of our law professors at UBC, Bill Black, has said that this type of provision in a constitution has been used in the United States to attack or prevent the improvement of labour standards legislation such as the bill we're dealing with here. Even though that provision has yet to be included in the constitution, this government is acting as if they have a mandate to protect the proprietary rights that some employers seem to believe they have in their employees by making this legislation much less effective and by undermining the protection of workers in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I think the government cannot demonstrate that they have consulted with the best possible experts on labour standards in drafting this bill. I don't think the government can show that it has consulted with the people who will be affected by this bill. I don't think the government can demonstrate that it has consulted with employers on this bill as broadly as it should have.

1 would like to move that the motion we are now discussing be amended by leaving out the word "now" and adding the words "on this day twelve months hence."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair earlier dispensed with a similar hoist motion, and therefore the Chair cannot accept a second motion to hoist. If there is any authority members might cite to challenge this, the Chair could be happy to hear it. Until then, I rule that the motion will not be accepted.

[4:00]

MR. SKELLY: I challenge that ruling.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 10

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

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I rose very slowly in my place because I was still under the expectation that some member of the government might rise to debate this bill. But the only response we get from the government ranks is from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who wishes the right to rise and close debate with a perfunctory statement which doesn't address the real issues that have been raised on this side of the House and which permits no reply.

We have tried on various occasions either to adjourn the debate or to adjourn the House, and we have been denied that right. We are like a ship in the night, the "Flying Dutchman," that plunges through the seas forever totally out of the control of its own crew.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's you guys.

MR. MACDONALD: It's the whole House, that cannot by its own will adjourn itself. So we go plunging on through the seas forever condemned to debate this bill without respite.

Mr. Speaker, what I have just said is a reflection on a previous ruling of the Chair.

But I now wish to advert to the bill, and I do so in a more serious vein. I'm going at this time to only address two

[ Page 2244 ]

points. There are two principles in this bill which seem to me to be extremely offensive in terms of the rights of labouring people in this province. The first are those provisions in section 2 which say that minimum standards vouchsafed to labour will not apply if they are referred to in the terms of a collective agreement. The second, which I'll come to a few minutes later, are those provisions where when a collective agreement expires and if an appropriate period of time is allowed to pass or is forced to be made to pass by the obdurance of either party — but presumably the employer — that collective agreement... .

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, of course; it's in the employer's interest in that case to stonewall.

...falls to the ground and the hard-won conditions that have been negotiated by the labour force are of naught at that point.

These are very serious provisions downgrading labour standards in the province of British Columbia. Throughout our history of — what will we call it? — the safety net of minimum labour conditions in this province we have gradually evolved a floor of conditions under labour standards legislation which previously were contained in many other acts, such as hours of work, minimum wage, and things of that kind. But they were minimum standards. The great strong unions, with a fairly affluent employer, or a company that can pass on its costs without too much difficulty to its customers or to the public, will not be too concerned about the abrogation of basic standards for working people in this province. But those who cannot negotiate for those minimal standards will be forced against their will, if they are a trade union, to let down the working people that they hope to represent and support in terms of proper labour standards.

I recall the case of the fruit workers of the Okanagan. I'm referring to section 2 of Bill 26. It is as true today as it was 15 or 20 years ago. They were not at any time in a strong bargaining position, so far as the packing plants that stretched from Nelson to Osoyoos to Penticton to Keremeos and Kelowna. They were in a poor position to negotiate minimal standards, even though they were very well represented in the early stages of their union growth by the former Deputy Minister of Labour, Bill Sands. That's quite true. They would negotiate as far as they could go, and then they had to rely on the minimal standards, including even the minimum wage for their employees, because they had weak bargaining power. In many cases the packers were related by family and had difficulty in selling and marketing their juices and vegetables and fruits in a market which was besieged and undercut by competition from the United States. They were able to say to themselves: "There is a minimum floor of labour protection in the province of British Columbia below which no worker need fall." Now we have a misnamed Minister of Labour who has stripped away that floor. Why not say "Minister of Companies"? Why not say "Minister of Leanness and Efficiency and Low Wages and Poor Maternity Leave"? Why say Minister of Labour? I thought a Minister of Labour was the one who sought to protect, wherever he could within his jurisdiction — unless he was overruled by cabinet a floor of minimum standards for all of the working people — a floor of the province of British Columbia, even if they were poor and had also to concern themselves with a balance.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

But I'm talking about the floor. We're not talking about the employer's side in this bill. We're talking about a minimum floor. Oh, you say it's in the employer's interest to be able to plunge through that floor in certain cases. And of course that's what your bill is saying. You say: "Remember the employer's interest." Of course you remember it. But you should not allow at the behest of employers, whom you are obviously serving with this kind of legislation, employees to fall below a minimal standard of employment conditions. That's what you are doing. If the matter, be it maternity leave or severance pay, is referred to in a collective agreement at all, then the minimal standards no longer apply to protect those particular employees. Am I not right?

[4:15]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Don't you believe in collective agreements?

MR. MACDONALD: Of course I do. At least we get some debate. We get out of the silent ranks of the Social Credit members opposite repartee from the minister, but that is all. Do I believe in collective agreements? Of course I do. But I also believe....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I am making my points. It's time this minister listened. Where was the consultation or the community demand that we should abrogate the floor of minimal conditions for the working people of British Columbia? Where was that demand? This is a bill that came straight from the Fraser Institute and Michael Walker. I didn't hear anywhere — from employers or unions or public — any suggestion that minimal standards for such things as severance pay and holidays and overtime provisions should in any case be abrogated for the working people of the province, So why did the minister, like the man on the end of a string, decide to bring in Bill 26? The strong will still be able to protect themselves. There are strong unions and strong industries, and those strong unions can bargain well above the minimal conditions for their members. But there are also a lot of other unions that, with the best intent, do not have bargaining muscle and cannot bargain to insert in collective agreements the minimal standards which this so-called Minister of Labour is abrogating by this legislation.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, of course you have. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) says: "Let's have rational bargaining." But are we seriously thinking of doing away with the floor that protects the weak in terms of their maternity leave, their overtime work, their severance pay, their minimal pay for hours of work?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, that is the first principle of the legislation we are discussing, and I suppose I've probably said all I can about it. That's what the minister is doing. He's allowing.... It's kind of difficult to speak

[ Page 2245 ]

with the Minister of Lands nattering away as he is at this hour in the morning.

What the Minister of Labour is doing is allowing some people who work for a living to fall through the floor of the minimal conditions of decency that should apply to all working people in the province of British Columbia. That's section 2. I think it's reprehensible. I suppose it's going to make money for some small employer who is able to back a union against the wall — or bust it.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I know very much what I'm talking about. I know a lot more about the fruitworkers in the Okanagan, a lot more than that hon. member, Mr. Speaker. I don't know why I should be diverted by that kind of repartee. I'm not going into that, but I do know something about it. I m not only talking about the fruitworkers of the Okanagan. They have a pretty good union today, one which has survived through the years. They have market problems with fruit that you wouldn't believe, but they may be above the minimal conditions that we're talking about.

Other people can't do it; so why does this government...? Why do you feel so free to attack the weak, as we're doing in this session of the Legislature? Why don't you establish a minimum safety net for the people who do not have bargaining strength? Union protection — but no one should be allowed to fall below the floor of minimal standards of labour conditions, and that's exactly what this so-called Minister of Labour is doing.

What I've just said Mr. Speaker, is unparliamentary, and I should have been pulled up for it.

The second principle of this bill, also I think in section 2, provides that if a collective agreement expires — as they all do; they're either one-, two- or three-year agreements....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, let the second member for Vancouver East continue uninterrupted, please. It's all very interesting, but even at 4:20 in the morning I don't think it's really in keeping with what is expected of this august chamber.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the second reprehensible principle in this bill pertains to a case where a collective agreement expires, which they all do after one, two or three years. The legislation we're asked to approve says that after an appropriate time — which is a very vague statement — the director of labour standards may declare the conditions that had prevailed under that collective agreement to be of no more force and effect. I think that principle is a union-busting principle coming out of the hands of that Minister of Labour. It's a union-busting principle — again, perhaps not for the strong union, but certainly for a great many of them. The employer with that kind of a provision says to himself: "Here I am faced with a collective agreement which has expired" — say on September 30 of the year — "but it contains within itself the usual provisions" — which were under the Labour Code as well until this legislation — "that its terms and conditions carry on for the protection of those workers until the negotiation of a new agreement, or until a strike or a lockout." The incentive in this bill is for the employer therefore to say to himself: "I will stand fast and object and turn down any reasonable offers of settlement of this labour dispute and these negotiations until an appropriate time has passed, and then I or someone else, either on my behalf or on their own initiative, may apply to the director of labour standards to declare that collective agreement at an end." If the employer can reach that point by stonewalling the negotiations, by not bargaining in good faith, then the employees start from scratch in their negotiations. They've lost the protection. They're without a union agreement at that point and they bargain from the bottom up, as if they had never won any labour conditions, wages, maternity leave, severance pay or whatever in the past.

You may say that's a marvellous provision to insert into the labour legislation of the province of British Columbia, but it's terribly biased in favour of anti-union employers. I thought we had established a pretty fair balance under the Labour Code of British Columbia, and I give great credit to my friend Bill King, and also to the people who helped him, including Mr. Matkin, for the development of the Labour Code of the province, which established a reasonably fair balance. I wonder why, without any demand from employers or labour or the public in respect to these provisions, the Minister of Labour came in with this kind of legislation which upsets that balance and puts, like a flaming brand in the hands of employers, a union-busting and contract-busting mechanism that he didn't ask for but will certainly use.

That's what we have in Bill 26. Mr. Speaker, I see only those two basic principles in the bill, but I think there are a great many other things for discussion in committee in terms of stripping away some powers, awarding wages through the board and that kind of thing; other sections and principles will be discussed by other members. Eliminating the basic floor of conditions for all working people of the province of British Columbia, and allowing an obdurate employee, when a union contract expires, to cancel out all of the labour gains that have been won by that workforce under their collective agreement: those two things are vicious, anti-labour principles and they should not have been introduced by a Minister of Labour.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Lands, Parks, Housing and Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) or the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) — who have been making a great many interjections from their seats during the remarks of my colleague from Vancouver East — would like to take their place in debate, I would certainly be prepared to give way to either one of them.

The Employment Standards Act is exactly what its name implies: it sets minimum standards for workers in British Columbia. It's been in place for some three years now, and was introduced by the former Minister of Labour, now the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich).

I think the question that we have to concern ourselves with at this early hour of the morning is whether those minimum standards, when they were introduced three years ago, were too rich. Obviously this amendment to the act is moving to lower those standards. One would have to assume that when the former Minister of Labour introduced the bill in the first place, it was too rich. With that thought in mind, Mr. Speaker, I went back to the Hansards of 1980, when the bill was introduced, to see just what the basis was for the introduction of the bill. Was it considered an advanced piece of legislation? Did the minister feel he was taking one mighty step forward for labour in British Columbia? It was very

[ Page 2246 ]

interesting to see what the minister said when he brought the bill into being. He said that in the first place there was nothing new in the bill. Really the Employment Standards Act, which we're now attempting to amend, was a consolidation of a great many pieces of legislation already on the books in a great many statutes. He therefore had simply consolidated these into one act.

[4:30]

I will quote from the Hansard of August 19 1980, when the then minister, the Hon. Mr. Heinrich, introduced the bill:

The public was wondering whether this was something new; it wasn't. The additional standards that I think we should take note of involve termination of employment and notice, or payment in lieu of notice. The standards are not pace-setting. They are minimum and, in my view, will be accepted by most.

In fact, they were the result of work that had been started back in 1975, or even before that; a lot of the work had been done before this government came into office. They had been promised by this government through 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979; and finally in 1980, after all those years of promising that they were going to bring in the bill, they brought in the Employment Standards Act: "minimum requirements," and by the minister's own tale nothing earth-shaking, nothing shattering, no great advance, just a consolidation of things that had been around a long time.

My contention, Mr. Speaker, is that the act was not too rich. In fact, many of its provisions were far less than in other areas. It did put into one piece of legislation a lot of things that had been in place for a long time. There were the requirements for minimum overtime wages, minimum rest periods, lunch breaks, callout and notice of shift assignments. It did do one thing, certainly not very earth-shattering: the hours of work were established at 40 a week rather than 44. I don't think many people were working 44 hours a week. The 40 hour week has been accepted for a long time. Annual vacations: three weeks after five years, which was a minimum standard. Maternity leave: there was some extension of that from 16 to 18 weeks, not a particular advance. In fact, at the time it was termed "catchup" legislation. We were catching up to a lot of legislation already in effect federally and in provinces like Quebec, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan. We were catching up in 1980 to things already in effect in other areas of Canada. So it's somewhat startling to me to find now that three years down the road those minimums that were barely acceptable at that time — simply a catchup piece of legislation — are now being undermined; that the minimums are no longer going to apply. That seems very strange to me, in a province like British Columbia, where we have always considered ourselves to be a very advanced and forward looking population. We've always considered our economy to be one that leads the way and our whole social structure to be one that's in the lead. We're a have province, not a have-not province. Now here we find this kind of backing off from these standards.

There was another thing about the original act — and that's something that's not being changed.... Apart from a feeling that the minimum requirements were much lower than they should have been, really, in 1980 — that we should have been taking a few more forward steps because the things that had been brought into being there were so minimal — the other thing was that it was another piece of legislation where so much of it was above and beyond the legislation. So much of it was not in the act itself but was going to be dealt with by regulations. That part's still there. Regulations, of course, are something that are not considered on the floor of this chamber; they're something that are simply drawn up by cabinet and can change by a simple stroke of the pen, an order-in-council. So even the minimum standards, as set, were subject to these regulations, and that was an objection we had with the bill at the time it was introduced. That's an objection that is of even greater concern as a result of the kind of amendments that are now being presented.

When is a minimum no longer a minimum, Mr. Speaker? That's the thing that we have to look at in this bill. There have been remarks across the floor that we have to have this bill because trade unions are too strong. If you have a trade union that is strong and viable, it will not be of too much concern, because that union will be able to ensure that the people who are protected by it are still protected by that collective agreement. They will probably be able to deal with the employer and come up with some kind of an acceptable agreement under the processes of collective bargaining, as long as they both bargain in good faith. That is the secret of successful collective bargaining: there has to be good faith.

The concern with this bill is that it may destroy that good faith, because certainly an employer who didn't want to bargain in good faith could simply delay. There's nothing to say how long that delay has to be, but as an employer he would certainly be considered an interested party under this bill, and he could make application at any point, almost, to say: "We're not getting anywhere with this bargaining process; I think that you should declare this agreement void." That could happen. Under this bill, if it becomes an act, a collective agreement could be declared void even though there was a clause in that agreement, as there is in so many collective agreements, that if in fact the agreement expires and there is no further agreement settled upon, the terms of that agreement will remain in force until another agreement is reached. I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Speaker, that a great many collective agreements have that clause. Even though that agreement has that statement written in, mutually agreed to and signed by both parties, it would be gone under this bill. It would all be void even though that agreement contained that clause. Certainly that is not going to be conducive to bargaining in good faith.

Many employers will still bargain in good faith, but there will be employers who will say: "Aha, this is something we can use. This is a tool we can use to breach our contract." That's really what they will do: they will breach those contracts. What will happen? Is that going to be good for the economic future of British Columbia? I suggest that's just one more instance where we're going to have more and more confrontation in the field of labour-management relations. That confrontation is certainly not good for the economy of British Columbia. This government seems determined to proceed on its collision course to promote confrontation. In a time when our economy is in the shape that it is, that to me does not represent responsible or even honest government. It would seem that the government is determined to create that kind of confrontation. They somehow think it's to their political advantage to do so.

Minimum standards are supposed to be just that — minimum standards. There is not supposed to be an opportunity to change those to operate at a level below that minimum, and yet that is exactly what this bill will do. Many agreements — and particularly with the smaller trade unions, or smaller groups of people such as clerical workers — have more or less relied over the years on the minimum standards as they

[ Page 2247 ]

were then in force in the various pieces of legislation and statutes, even prior to 1980 when we got them all into one bill. They have negotiated sort of skeletal contracts that perhaps dealt with wages and some minimum requirement for hours of work, and haven't been concerned about ensuring that they dealt with the rates of....

[4:45]

For example, you might have a contract that says the hours of work shall be eight hours a day, and anything over would be paid at overtime rates. That may be all that was said. Since 1980 they have relied on the Employment Standards Act to indicate what the overtime rates would be. Also, if they were working at some job, such as a mechanic who perhaps needs coveralls, something like that, or protective clothing; someone who was working with chemicals, people who needed safety glasses, safety shoes, hard hats: they would just assume that the standards were covered. It wouldn't be in the contract.

Under this bill — certainly as I read it — if that contract specifies that the hours of work should be eight hours a day, the people who work in that particular unit under that contract would no longer be covered by the minimum standards for overtime or special apparel. It's a very convoluted kind of approach. Why do that? But that's what the act says; it says that if any one of those three items is covered in the contract, then the minimum standards for the other two will not be applicable.

Why, Mr. Speaker? Do we want people working without protective clothing? Do we want more compensation cases, higher hospital costs, more ambulance costs, more pensions for people who have lost the sight of an eye or lost a hand or a foot? Without the proper apparel those things could happen, and there will be no protection, if in fact there is a contract that talks about hours of work, and no assurance that the people working in that particular operation have....

There's no requirement on the part of the employer to ensure that proper safety apparel is provided. Overtime is the same. If there is anything in the contract that says your hours of work shall be eight hours a day, and you just assume that the rates of overtime will be covered by the employment standards, that will no longer be the case. That doesn't seem to make any kind of sense to me.

Annual vacation or vacation pay. If there is any mention in a contract about either one of those items but it doesn't cover specifically all aspects of that — it doesn't cover exactly how much annual vacation after how many years, or what the rate of pay will be, or whether you will be paid for that — you'll no longer be covered. Perhaps the contract says that after a year you get a week's vacation. That's it then. You may not even be paid for that vacation. Certainly the minimum standards will no longer apply. What kind of sense is there to that? Surely the people who produce the wealth of this province — and believe me, the people who produce the wealth of this province are the workers in this province — deserve something with a little more security than that kind of legislation.

Termination of employment or layoff. If there is any mention of either one of those items in the contract, no matter how slight — as long as it's mentioned — then the minimum standards will not apply as far as notice or payment or just cause. Bang, that's it. No coverage by legislation which is actually on our statute books. If you look at past history, you will recognize how important that particular aspect is because of all the decisions that have been dealt with. In 1981, 146 decisions were handed down by the board that deals with employment standards, 145 of them dealing with the payment of back wages. That would relate to the termination of employment and layoff, in most instances. And now if there is any mention in any contract about either of those aspects, the minimum standards no longer apply.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister says "not really."

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: But termination of employment is in here, Mr. Speaker, and when you terminate someone or lay them off, then there is the problem of what kind of money they get. If it's not "wages" in here, let's say what kind of "money" they're entitled to because of the layoff, lack of notice, whatever. We won't call it wages, if that upsets the minister.

Maternity or pregnancy leave. Here we are again; we're really taking it out on the women.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm just waiting for the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) to calm himself a little, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm really concerned about the sections dealing with the pregnancy leave, because women have fought very hard to try to get a fair approach. This really is to me the most offensive part of this whole bill. It repeals the whole section of the old act, which stated that when an employer contravened part 7 — that is, the maternity leave provision — he could be ordered to "pay a person or employee compensation for financial loss or damages caused by the contravention." The concerns that I have relate to the new wording of this section. There is still some recourse, but it says that "an employer must reinstate her or pay her any wages lost by reason of any contravention," but if she suffers any financial loss other than wages....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: She could want damages for poor treatment by the employer.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MRS. WALLACE: I learned a long time ago, Mr. Speaker, never to try to outshout that member; I just wait until he calms himself and then I go on, because this seems to happen every time I get up and speak. I don't know if it happens to other members, but whenever I am speaking he seems to like to chatter away there from his seat.

An employer might fail to keep up payments to pension, for example, or to medical — that would be very serious — or dental or any benefit plan that might be required by the act. Another very serious thing is loss of seniority. The old wording "to pay a person or employee compensation for financial

[ Page 2248 ]

loss or damages caused by the contravention" made it very clear that those things were covered. The change in the wording leaves a pregnant woman who is working and requires pregnancy leave at a very great disadvantage. Again, it seems that women are being singled out, certainly not for special treatment but treatment that downgrades them. To do this to pregnant women, when we have worked so hard to ensure that women do have equal rights by law in the workplace.... To make that particular change in this act certainly is not the way we should be going here in British Columbia, or anywhere for that matter.

[5:00]

I've talked about the various changes that are made in the.... I'm not supposed to talk about sections under the principle of the bill, but there is a section that does deal with these hours of work, overtime, special apparel, annual vacation or vacation pay, termination of employment or layoff, and maternity or pregnancy leave.

It's really surprising that we would see legislation that says that if your collective agreement has a clause about the employer providing any of those things, then all the statutory guarantees are gone. If your collective agreement has a clause about special apparel, then all statutory guarantees of overtime pay and hours of work are gone. Why? Is it some kind of trick to try to outmanoeuvre the people who are working and giving their time and effort to an employer? To try to find some way to do them out of return for that labour? Minimum standards should be minimum standards, and there shouldn't be these kinds of strange loopholes deliberately written into legislation. That's what they appear to be: nothing more or less than loopholes.

If there is any provision about vacation pay then you're no longer guaranteed the statutory minimum of two or three weeks vacation, or 4 to 6 percent pay. There's nothing about wages, the minister says. How can he deny that that's the case? That's what the act says. If there is any discussion in the agreement about termination rights in any way, then your statutory guarantee of your two to eight weeks' notice pay....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is becoming a little bit repetitive. Perhaps the hon. member would just be a little more cautious in that regard.

MRS. WALLACE: I appreciate your comments, Mr. Speaker, and the final thing I wanted to say about this was that if there was any discussion of termination rights, then you lose the statutory guarantee which we have in this bill of the two to eight weeks' notice pay, and if it discusses maternity leave, then you lose all of the act's maternity-leave guarantees. And that is really a very strange thing.

The minister talks about wages, but there is a part of this act which indicates that severance pay, if a company goes into bankruptcy, is changed. The act has been changed, and no longer holds directors and officers of a corporation liable for unpaid severance pay if a corporation goes into bankruptcy or receivership or is subject to any bank action. So that's another thing where the worker is going to have difficulty in getting a fair return for his labour. You would know, Mr. Speaker, that wages have always been a prime claim if a company falls into difficulties and goes into bankruptcy.

I wonder if the member for Okanagan North (Mr. Campbell) is not well. Perhaps the attendants should go to his assistance.

Although I was going to read a few comments here that have been made about this bill, I will just point out that I have a letter here from my local regional board expressing their concern about this bill and asking that it be withdrawn. That's from the Cowichan Valley Regional Board.

In view of the fact that the green light is on, I would move that the bill not be now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Labour and Justice. I think that my remarks would indicate the reasons for that move and that we really need to consider the bill a bit further before we pass it into legislation. Hopefully, if we have a good look at it, it will ensure that some of the pitfalls and loopholes that are in this bill will be removed.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, while Beauchesne's fifth edition, page 225, would indicate that a motion such as the motion by the member, that the subject matter should be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Labour and Justice.... The Chair is bound by the practice of this House, and I would refer hon. members to the Journals of this House for March 17, 1961, where  Mr. Speaker ruled that a similar motion was in order and the vote was negated by the House. Subsequently it was again determined by the House that the motion was in fact not in order. That is on page 133 of our Journals, and it was very clearly spelled out in that particular ruling.

The reference for this particular decision is further based upon standing order 1 of our standing orders, which indicates that in sessional or other uses in our own House the precedents there take precedence over other rulings.

MR. HOWARD: Would Your Honour permit a submission?

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. HOWARD: It has been held on many occasions — I think by yourself, Your Honour, too — that Beauchesne does have a relevance to this chamber, and there have been selective decisions made, notwithstanding what standing order I says about the practice of pre-eminence in the British House of Commons. Secondly, Beauchesne does contemplate, other than a referral of the subject matter to a committee of the House, the potential of a referral to a commission. If I could draw Your Honour's attention to our own Journals, on May 26, 1978, a comparable amendment was moved for second reading of Bill 4, which was an amendment to the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Act, 1964. On page 93 it says: "Mr. Nicolson moved an amendment as follows: That the bill be not read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Energy Commission of British Columbia (British Columbia Energy Commission)." The debate continued, and then on the following day the debate on the amendment was concluded, and the House divided and turned it down. So there was a subsequent activity in the House, contrary to that which you have just referred to. I think it should also be pointed out that in the 1961 reference which you made, it's very important to note that the procedural decision made by Mr. Speaker, on the grounds of what the rules should be, was overturned by a political decision, namely an appeal to the House, by the

[ Page 2249 ]

government of the day. Your Honour should take that into consideration in the ruling that you are about to make.

MR. SPEAKER: Insofar as the latter point is concerned, I would however point out that, notwithstanding the observation regarding the political decision — that subsequent.... In fact, I believe it was that same day: the same decision was made, based on the decision previously made. In regard to the first point, I will need a moment.

[5:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in reference to the reference of the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the referral to the Energy Commission was not to a standing committee of the House. Secondly, there is no indication that the May 26 ruling in any way set aside the previous ruling of March 17, 1961.

Further, hon. members, the Chair is bound, as standing order 1 of our standing orders indicates.... "In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders...." Clearly the decision on May 17, 1961, falls into the "sessional or other orders" category, and the Chair is bound by that decision. Consequently, hon. member, the Chair cannot rule that the motion before us is in order.

MR. HOWARD: You've just wiped out Beauchesne completely. I challenge that ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Not me, hon. member. The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 7

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

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, at 5:25 a.m. we conclude debate on second reading of this very important piece of legislation. I won't take too long to wrap up debate on Bill 26.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

My initial comments really want to reflect upon the general concept of this bill, and the definitely worrying aspects in terms of management-labour relations. It is generally considered....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Perhaps when the caucus is finished over there I'll continue, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed. Order, hon. members. We'll have an orderly House so we can hear the second member for Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: You love that chair. You look good there, Mr. Speaker.

I was about to try to put some introductory remarks together, Mr. Speaker. It's considered appropriate in modern management-labour relations to try to introduce certain principles of consultation between management and labour. If one wants to see an orderly labour process in place, one tries, if one is interested in good productivity out of the workforce, to ensure that there is reasonable consultation over particular aspects which have fairly radical implications for many working people.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Am I interrupting?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed, hon. member.

[5:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the concern that we on this side of the House have — and I think it's in a number of quarters in this province, not only with labour but also with employers — is the fact that much of the legislation before this House is, indeed, labour legislation. Unfortunately the government in its wisdom has decided to introduce 99 percent of it after minimal consultation with those directly affected by this legislation, and I refer to Bill 26 in particular.

It would make sense for a sensible, intelligent government with good leadership to consider that if one wants peace and amicable arrangements between management and labour in this province, if one wants productivity to be improved — which I think we all support; no one is against that — if one wants morale in the workforce to be excellent, and one is reasonable in these matters, one would consider a process of consultation over important pieces of legislation. In the estimation of this side of the House — and, I think, other quarters in this province — the doors are open for that consultation. Much has been made about the impression given by the government side that the labour movement is not prepared to compromise or consult with government. I would have to say today, as we have said a number of times in the past, that labour is quite prepared to sit down with the government and consult and discuss important matters that they believe pertain to the workforce, to their members and, I think, to the orderly development of labour-management relationships in this province.

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), in his very quiet and amicable — terrific — way, nods his head in a negative fashion, which is unfortunate, because that minister, of course, has some important pieces of legislation that he is in charge of which, like Bill 26, might be improved by taking out the confrontation which currently exists with much of the

[ Page 2250 ]

legislation before us. Consultation. Perhaps some concepts of democracy, in terms of those making the decisions about labour-management relations in this province. Some concepts of reasonable debate over the table — not in this chamber, because obviously in this chamber it is very difficult to try to enter into some problem-resolving methods. Let's admit it: in here the positions are fairly entrenched. It's cut and thrust across the chamber to see who can make the best point, who gets the most attention and makes the most Brownie points.

However, in the long term we know that the best decisions and the most long-lasting in terms of things like labour relations and standards, which are included in Bill 26....

We know that the best way to resolve these problems is between the various parties in a quiet room somewhere. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) has had a long history of being involved in this sort of thing. I'm pretty sure that if we took him aside and talked to him quietly, he would perhaps admit that introducing pieces of legislation like this — out of the blue, with virtually no consultation with those to be directly affected — only asks for confrontation, misunderstanding and misperceptions. It cannot improve labour relations in this province.

It is our contention that the government — again I say "in its wisdom," though we believe that wisdom is somewhat misplaced — has really forgotten or underestimates the importance of the working person and the collective working groups — in other words the trade unions. There may indeed be some problems. We are quite prepared to admit that there are always things that have to be worked out and discussed and that reasonableness and compromise — after all, that's what politics is all about, not only in this chamber but politics of labour and management situations — will always win the day. I think that is what the citizens of British Columbia are looking for. Our party is quite willing to discuss — as we put forward our amendment just a few minutes ago — within the environment that is conducive to reasonable discussion and not just government's position whereby the opposition is put in the position of saying "we cannot accept this bill," and there seems to be no middle ground. There has to be a middle ground, not only on this piece of legislation but also in many other areas that we have been debating over the last two or three months in this House. I think the people of British Columbia want that. I've had the opportunity to talk to some members of the government over the last few months, and when we get to know each other a little better and we see each other as human beings, not just as opposition or government, we can admit to each other that maybe there is room for conflicting opinions and positions to mellow somewhat. I'm sure all of us, deep down, feel that there are ways to resolve problems. One of those has to be trying to develop ways that legislation in this House can be worked out before it comes into this chamber — at least discussed not within the atmosphere of what happens in this particular chamber here. That is a standing committee concept. It works well in other jurisdictions.

I believe that last amendment on Bill 26 was a good chance for the government to accept a compromise at this time. There are a number of things in this bill, and I think the minister has probably admitted already that there is some misconception about what this bill means in certain clauses. Perhaps those things should be worked out and the labour movement or those directly affected by this legislation should fully understand those clauses. Understanding, knowledge of the situation, full information is three-quarters of the battle in trying to resolve your problems. I would suggest to the government that hopefully over the next few years we will be able to take a look at some different procedures for legislation such as we have before us, introduced right after the budget, out of the blue, socked to whatever sectors the government has, in its wisdom, decided to take on. In the long term that cannot really have a very good impact on this province.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm going to get to that in a minute. I have three areas I want to get to — three little things.

So just to conclude these introductory remarks, again I request the government to consider the rank and file, the labour movement — non-union and union — to be an important component in the economic recovery of this province. They are indeed. I would suggest to the government that if they can find it — I was going to say, "within their hearts," but I don't know how many hearts we have over there....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please let me remind you that tempered language in debate always receives a tempered response.

MR. BLENCOE: You're right, Mr. Speaker. They have hearts. Of course they have hearts. But what I'm trying to say is that rather than confront those people who are the hewers of wood and the drawers of water in this province, rather than see them as the enemy....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I wish Don Phillips was here. That's too bad.

If the government can perhaps turn around its attitude to those working people in the province and see them as a friend and as a way to try to put this province back on its feet again, see them as a partner in recovery, I think we would be on the right course in this province.

I have three areas of concern with this particular piece of legislation. The first, of course, is the opinion of the opposition that a single civil servant appointed by an order-in-council will have the ability to say that a contract is not in force. It has been normal to accept the practice that when a collective agreement expires, that collective agreement is in place until the new one is drawn up. Maybe the minister will be able to explain why he wants to change these minimum standards in that gap between the old agreement and the new agreement and radically affect the collective agreement that many unions have struggled to attain through the free collective bargaining process. That, of course, is seen by many as an attempt by the government to weaken the position of the trade union movement, an attempt to minimize the minimum standards which I think all jurisdictions in the western world have come to accept — that working people have a right to decent minimum standards in the workforce.

We would like some clarification about why the government feels it is essential that one civil servant would have the right to impose clauses that would radically affect the minimum standards of employment in this province. Maybe the minister will be able to explain that to us, because there is some concern in this province.

[ Page 2251 ]

The other area of concern, and this is one I want to emphasize a little more than the previous one, is the abolition of the Employment Standards Board. It is generally accepted now in labour-management relations that the best way to resolve disputes or contract contradictions is to put those disputes — obviously in this particular piece of legislation we are talking about minimum employment standards — to a board that is appointed but tries to maintain some semblance of objectivity in its decision-making. We, and I think generally the public of British Columbia, feel that the boards that have been established in labour relations — obviously the most important one is the Labour Relations Board; I am not quite sure what is going to happen to that in the next few months — should be scrapped, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid), says. If that is the attitude of the government in terms of resolving labour-management disputes, we are going to be in serious problems in this province. You are really asking for incredible confrontation. The Labour Relations Board generally has been perceived to have done an excellent job.

Interjections.

[5:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BLENCOE: You have to have an arbitrator in disputes, and it is generally accepted that a board....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: I am trying to avoid, Mr. Speaker, reading certain things in this bill that many have seen in it. What I am trying to indicate to the government is that if you remove the pertinent sections in labour-management relations in this province that have been established to ensure that there is peace and harmony in those particular relationships, you are asking for serious trouble. You have to have that arbitrator; you have to have the objectivity. You may not like some of those decisions that boardcomes up with, but....

MR. REID: It is always one-sided.

MR. BLENCOE: Because you want it on the other side — one-sided because it makes a few decisions that you don't agree with.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the second member for Surrey please come to order.

MR. BLENCOE: What we really have in the abolition of the Employment Standards Board is the dichotomy between the rule of law versus the rule of man, or the rule of one person, being the new director. We happen to believe in the rule of law, not the rule of one man or one director.

If you only have one person making decisions on such things as employment standards, that person has incredible pressure put upon him or her. The system is opened up to abuse in terms of political pressure, or, indeed, I could suggest patronage of some sort, and that is going back 50 years in terms of management-labour relationships in this province. We don't want to go back to those days, because I would suggest that they were far worse.

In the last few years in this province there have been some confrontations, but generally speaking there has been peace in the Iabour- management field. Look at the statistics. You go back 10, 15 or 20 years and recall what happened in this province before we had some of those civilized boards that tried to maintain some order. The former Minister of Labour recognized that and he was respected for that. He tried to enhance that, and I think he got a lot of credit, and so he should. Unfortunately, the province of British Columbia has a government today that has taken a violent change in course to extreme rightism, and I would suggest that extremism will not result in reasonable approaches to problems.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You see, Mr. Speaker, they don't want to talk about reasonable approaches, because....

MR. REID: Is that right? What are we doing listening to you, then?

MRS. WALLACE: You're not talking about it:

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member for Cowichan-Malahat please not interrupt the first member for Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: I think the second member for Surrey made the interruption, Mr. Speaker.

We do have an extreme turn to the right. Nobody has any real argument with the fact that the government may take a position on its attitudes toward labour. If you want to take that position in your attitudes, we know where you come from. We know it's always a debate at your convention about right to work and all those things. But I would really remind this government that the citizens of British Columbia are your first priority. If you are extreme in your views and attitudes, what results is extremism on the other side.

I would suggest that the labour movement is indeed handing to this government the opportunity to meet and discuss. They're prepared to be reasonable, to meet and see what can be done, perhaps to meet some of your objectives. But obviously they're not going to give up some things that they feel they have fought long and hard for to maintain dignity and worth in the workplace. You cannot expect anyone to do that. Dignity and worth are very important....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Honesty and integrity in government, that's what we stand for.

I want to reiterate that in our opinion you are asking for trouble by removing the board, obliterating the rule of law and introducing the rule of one director over this particular employment standards area in this province. I think even employers, who are involved in these things on the front line and in the trenches, will tell you quite candidly that if you introduce some of the things you want to do in Bill 26 you will not be creating labour peace in this province. I'm sure many employers are concerned that with the abolition of a board and that board being replaced by just one person, the opportunities for patronage and political abuse and political

[ Page 2252 ]

pressure will be horrendous. One person making decisions in such a complicated and political area as labour-management, one person having that kind of power, in our estimation — and I think in the estimation of a lot of people in this province — is not the way to go. We would ask the minister, maybe in his wrap-up remarks, if he could give us some good, sensible reasons why he wants to do these particular things.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude that Bill 26 is part of legislation being introduced by this government that appears to be determined to set back civilized and democratic processes in labour-management in this province that have been put together with a lot of blood, sweat and tears, a lot of hours, a lot of time, a lot of dedicated, caring people. We still have a long way to go when we compare how we make decisions in labour-management in this province compared to other jurisdictions. We are really still in the Dark Ages. This and certain other pieces of legislation are sending us back to the Bronze Age. It might serve the government well to take a look at what is happening in other jurisdictions — not necessarily in North America but in the European context. I would suggest that the West German approach to labour-management relationships has been extremely successful. Take a look at some of the major auto manufacturers in Europe. Some of them haven't had a strike or a labour dispute in years and years. One of the basic reasons is a mutual respect and mutual regard for each other's position. I would suggest that West Germany's economy is in a far better state than the province of British Columbia. Take a close look at how they resolve their problems there.

MRS. WALLACE: Cooperation, not confrontation.

MR. BLENCOE: Absolutely — cooperation, consultation and they don't take the club. Management maintains its rights and its privileges. Absolutely. No one has any problem with that. But when you have some basic difficulties, particularly during a recession, and you need that labour and that knowledge and that expertise in the labour field to help you resolve your problems, I would suggest, with respect, that the club won't resolve your problems. You may hammer the people down for so long, you may step on them for a short period of time, but by that you are not going to get their cooperation, energy or productivity.

Take a look at why you are in trouble. Take a look at the roots. I've said before — a number of months ago, Mr. Speaker — if you are not asking the right questions about what you are doing, it doesn't matter how many solutions you bring forward. You have to ask the right questions. I would suggest that the amendment that the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) put forward would have given this House the opportunity to ask the right questions and then bring in the solutions. Where there's a will there's a way. All sides want to have resolution of some of the problems in the labour-management field that are plaguing us.

[6:00]

The labour and the unions don't want this confrontation. They want to live quietly and happily with their families and earn a decent living and have respect in the workplace. They don't want to be having to go on the picket line. They don't want to have to be marching on Victoria. They don't want to be losing wages because they take time off to demonstrate against regressive legislation. All they ask from a government is a little respect for the workplace, a little respect for the working person, and not an erosion of rights and privileges for the working people that have been fought for over the last hundred years. We have come a long way. We've got problems; we all admit that. Our party admits that and we are prepared to work on those problems with the government and with the trade union movement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cut out the rhetoric!

MR. BLENCOE: No rhetoric, Mr. Member. Unfortunately, the government doesn't want to hear these things; they have made a decision to embark on extreme measures. But I can tell you that the people of this province are saying compromise, reasonableness, understanding for the working person, and a determination to remember that our number one priority is the general welfare of all citizens of British Columbia. Making war on one particular sector over another, taking on one particular component and playing it off against another, will not solve your problems. I believe, and our party believes, that the people of British Columbia have seen extremism face to face in the last few months. We in this party — and they also do, I know — support fiscal responsibility. Nobody will argue with that, and I have made that point over and over again,

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Minister, come on! You know that politics is about priorities and where you spend your dollars, and you have the ability to assess your priorities in terms of what is needed at this time. What you are doing, Mr. Minister, is assessing priorities that will not benefit the majority of British Columbians.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) please come to order. And would the second member for Victoria please remember what we talked about with regard to tempered language.

MR. BLENCOE: It is so unfortunate that all they can do is call personal insults across the House. Can't you be a little more reasonable and....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. BLENCOE: I just want to conclude by saying that many of the people of British Columbia — and there is a huge proportion in the middle ground — wonder what's happening. I think they want some indication that the government is prepared to take a look at all sides, prepared to enter into some reasonable debate with those that it's trying to take on. Reasonableness. Understanding. So in the interests of reasonableness, understanding and a second look, I would like to move this amendment.

I move, Mr. Speaker, that the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia, a highly regarded and highly respected board that should have some input into this legislation.

[ Page 2253 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the motion is out of order for the same reasons that were stated in this House less than one hour ago. Hon. members may want to look at Hansard to find out what those reasons were.

MR. HOWARD: Regarding your reference to events of an hour ago, I think Your Honour should know that an hour ago the amendment dealt with was a referral to a standing committee. In dealing with that subject matter after a subsequent point had been raised, Mr. Speaker did himself draw the distinction between a referral to a standing committee of the House and the decision on May 29, 1978, where an amendment was accepted to not read a bill the second time, but the subject matter to be referred to the Energy Commission. The distinction is between a commission or a board- a board is what this amendment seeks to do — and a standing committee of the House. Because Mr. Speaker drew that distinction himself, I think it has to be dealt with in a different way. I submit that this is perfectly in order given the action on May 26, 1978, when Mr. Nicolson moved an amendment which was accepted, and on May 29 when that amendment similar to the one before Your Honour proceeded through to a debate and subsequently to a vote.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the distinction the hon. member refers to is clearly obiter dictum.

MR. HOWARD: It is clearly what?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Obiter dictum.

MR. HOWARD: I challenge that.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 6

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

[6:15]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I know that many of the things in this bill will be discussed quite a lot more, I'm sure, during committee stage; there were some serious questions raised by the members opposite and they need answers. I think committee stage is the proper place to give some of those answers. I'm not going to speak very long tonight but I do want to make a couple of points, one particularly on the matter of consultation. Almost every member who spoke opposite talked about what they perceived as the lack of consultation in developing not only this piece of legislation, but by implication all of the other legislation that is before this House at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, when I was first given this job — somewhat over a year ago now — the first thing I said publicly was to give an open invitation to everyone in British Columbia to advise me about what they could see was wrong with legislation currently in place, and what needed to be changed with legislation currently in place. Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say that in the time that I've been a minister of government, which is about eight years now, I have never had so much input on any single item as I had on the labour legislation in this province. It has come from everybody: literally hundreds of briefs from individuals, from groups, from labour leaders, from individual labour unions and others. We've looked at all of those things and as a result of the input we've developed legislation. I don't recall any time in my time in government when there has been more consultation than there has been in the legislation before the House at the present time.

I want to deal with a couple of things that the member for Victoria said about labour being ready to meet, but first I want to get into a couple of little technical things. There is a philosophical difference between the members opposite and ourselves. There isn't any doubt about that, and every one of us will admit that. We don't apologize for it. I suppose that's why you're on one side of the House and we're on the other. The voters will make the final decision on that whole business. But there's one area in which we should both agree, and that is in this whole business of the need for a good collective bargaining climate in our province. If you look at the history of collective bargaining, you'll find that the reason people got together to bargain was that they needed that collective strength. They weren't strong enough by themselves to put up with perhaps an oppressive employer, or some kind of bad labour practices that were going on in the community. So they got together and they built that collective strength, and in doing that it meant that in the bargaining climate there would be give and take. You give something up on this side because you want something over here because it happens to suit your own particular interest. That's what collective bargaining is all about.

The principles behind this bill have to do with the sanctity of collective bargaining. What we're saying is that if you have sat down with your employer or employees and decided to bargain collectively, then the things that you put into that contract should have paramountcy. You can't have it both ways. You can't get into a bargaining situation and say: "We're not going to bargain for this particular thing, because the government will look after that. We'll just hammer the employer with this over here." You're not going to be able to use both the collective bargaining agreement and a government law, whichever one suits your particular interest at that time. For instance. In the areas of layoff provisions and severance pay, do you know that in the fishing and lumber industries they have altogether different provisions than anybody else in the province has? For instance, because they're seasonal and work in different kinds of shifts they have 12 month layoff procedures instead of three months.

AN HON. MEMBER: So what?

[ Page 2254 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: So what? Those should be paramount, because those people have sat down and bargained for them.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, they're not, under the present regulations, because you can pick and choose. Which do you like best? Do you like the employment standards or do you like the collective bargaining agreement? You know that's correct, and that's not right. The government must protect the weak, but the strong can look after themselves.

I'm interested, Mr. Speaker, in the comments made about the director, after a certain period of time when an agreement expires, being able to declare null and void part of the collective agreement — the part which deals only with the table in this bill, not with wages or anything else. Why? Because it isn't true that it automatically happens that a collective agreement continues after its expiry. Some do — BCGEU does, the forest industry does, and the strong unions all do — but some don't. What you're doing, by saying that we can't back up and apply the principles of the Employment Standards Act to an agreement which has expired, is leaving those employees hanging out to dry with no protection whatsoever. If that's what you want, that's okay. I believe, and so does this government, that if a contract expires and the rights are in jeopardy, then the standards must apply, and that's what this legislation says.

The provisions in this act do not deal with wages. They do not deal with wages anywhere, and it doesn't matter what you're saying....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It doesn't deal with back wages....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the only way it deals with back wages is in the way those wages are adjudicated. Except for the fact that there is no longer a board, and the director — who is not a political appointment, incidentally; he is a public servant not appointed by order-in-council, as the board was....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I said they're not appointed by order-in-council, Mr. Speaker, despite what that chirping little member over there says.

The bill and the principles thereof do not deal with wages, and there is no possible way under this bill, despite the convoluted arguments that many members on the opposite side gave, to forgo wages which are duly bargained for or given in any way. Those wages will be the subject of the collective agreement, or whatever way those wages were achieved. This bill cannot change them.

There are changes in the bill in terms of the way in which the administrative procedures are carried out, and I explained that to begin with when I opened second reading.

I'm a little disappointed in the way much of the debate was carried on, except that I must pay some tribute to the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who isn't in the House at the present time, and the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), who apparently had done a fair amount of research in making the comments that they made. Most of the other members used two newspaper articles quoting two newspaper writers and two lawyers, none of whom I've ever heard of, except for Rod Mickleburgh. But certainly no original research was done by any of the other members, and that disappoints me. I'm glad to see in the House the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who commented about the percentage of organized labour in this province. He said it is far less than it should be. We had a little dispute about how much it actually is, but it doesn't matter; we were only four or five percentage points apart. But I was quite surprised at that member, who gave what sounded like a marvellous defence of collective bargaining and the rights of people to collectivize in this province. At the risk of being unparliamentary, what that really was was a great demonstration of hypocrisy at its very best. I recall not long ago, 1972, in a quote from the Vancouver Sun, the MLA Gary Lauk, Vancouver Centre, former Economic Development minister — and he was, I guess, at that time — warning party members to be careful in supporting the concept of free collective bargaining. "Lauk agreed that the NDP's long-term goal is planned economy, which he said would be inconsistent with collective bargaining." The great champion of collective bargaining and the right of people to collectivize and work to strengthen their own opportunities in the workplace.

The other comment I want to make is one regarding the comment of a number of people on the other side, including the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who said that in one way or another the government was setting one side against the other and that we were promoting confrontation. Mr. Speaker, we aren't sending money to Solidarity. We aren't supporting Solidarity, which is preaching violence in the streets and confrontation. That's not us; that's you. We are ready to meet and talk at any time....

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister has just said people are preaching violence in the streets. He is entitled to say that about some separate group, but he is not entitled.... I submit that he is falsifying the situation when he points his finger across the way and says: "That's you."

Nobody on this side has ever preached that. The only person who has is Harvey Schroeder, for one. But nobody in this party has, and that's a falsehood. He should be required to retract and withdraw and apologize.

[6:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The point raised by the member for Skeena is a valid one, and I would ask that the member withdraw the inference that was made in that case.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure what I am supposed to withdraw, but I will, in the interests of the traditions of our House. I don't think there is any doubt that....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Now that I have that withdrawal I must also caution that when a member seeks the floor on a point of order and for a withdrawal of an

[ Page 2255 ]

unparliamentary remark, it is highly unparliamentary in asking for that withdrawal that the member himself use unparliamentary terms or terminology. It creates only chaos and does little to establish the traditions and the decorum of this chamber. It can be done in a most parliamentary way, and that is indeed the obligation of members in this chamber.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: ...on the part of the minister just begets abuse, and if there needs to be any kind of rational debate and rational relationship, the government offends that more than anybody. Particularly....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

We have listened for several hours, and now it is the minister's opportunity to speak in this debate, and he should be afforded that courtesy.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I heard the member for Mackenzie say I should tell the truth. It is the truth that most of the members who spoke on the other side of the House during this debate spoke about the Social Credit government provoking confrontation, trying to pit one side against the other. I didn't start that. I didn't say that. It came from that side of the House, and I would ask if anyone would deny that that is the kind of language that was used in the debate during the debate on this bill. It was used by almost every member on the opposite side. What I am saying is that we have not attempted to promote that kind of confrontation. I don't happen to hold a membership card in Solidarity. I do know, however, that many of the leading supporters, and in fact the officers of Solidarity, happen to be members of the New Democratic Party and perhaps even officers in the New Democratic Party, and I don't think that can be denied. So far, at least, there hasn't been much indication from the Solidarity movement that they wish to cooperate with the government. In fact, they won't meet with the government.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, under standing orders, the minister is required to be relevant to debate as much as the rest of us are. Nobody raised those points. The minister is raising irrelevancies in relation to this bill, and we should get on with it.

I also want to rise under standing order 42 and tell the minister exactly where he has gone wrong in other references as well.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I only raised these matters in answer to the things that have been raised in the last several hours of debate in the House, and I think that I have the fight to answer those things.

I want only to make one other point, and it has to do with comments that were made by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), who said that labour is ready to meet. Well, I hope that is true, Mr. Speaker, because the government is ready to meet.

I have said for a long time that one of the major problems we have in this province is not very esoteric or sophisticated in terms of labour relations, but it is simply that we do too much of our negotiation in the streets, through the media, with rhetoric and rituals, and not enough of our negotiation sitting across the table honestly talking to each other. Solidarity is a good example, and the comments of recent days by some of the leaders of our major unions. I am thinking perhaps of John Fryer, who used some very intemperate language about the Premier and the Labour minister and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), which doesn't help to develop the kind of climate that we need in order to develop a good labour relations situation in our province.

I would like to put on the record, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the comment that labour is ready to meet, that shortly after the May 5 election the Premier met with the newly elected president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, Mr. Kube, and at that time Mr. Kube asked the Premier if he would arrange for a meeting between the B.C. Federation of Labour and the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development, which I happen to chair. The Premier said yes, he would do it at the first opportunity. I have been attempting ever since.... I have issued three formal invitations to Mr. Kube to come and meet with our committee. He has refused. He will not meet, nor will he talk. The construction industry in British Columbia is today in very serious problems, particularly the unionized sector. Many unionized contractors have not had a contract awarded to them — particularly medium-sized contractors — for a year or 18 months. Many of their unionized employees are now working on non-union projects around the province, and the rest are out of work. I have issued a plea to the B.C. and Yukon building trades council to come and meet with our construction advisory council, which is equally made up of industry people and union people. I gave them three dates in September and said if they couldn't meet those we would made other dates available in October. It was perhaps coincidental, Mr. Speaker, that all of the construction people were able to meet at least one of the dates, but none of the union people were able to meet any of the dates. In effect, they have refused to meet. There is perhaps an intended, certainly an implicit, boycott of one kind or another, and you can't do business like that.

I don't care what the people on the other side think about this government, but we do happen to be the government at the present time, and we want to sit down with labour and talk about what is happening to the economy of this province. Because the second member for Victoria raised this very passionately, I would say to you who have very close ties to organized labour in this province: use your best offices to talk to Mr. Kube and Mr. Stair, and talk to others in the labour movement, Mr. Kramer and whoever else you need to talk with; talk to Mr. Gautier and to the leaders of Solidarity, and say: "Look, the time has come to meet, the time has come to sit down with us and talk about where we are going." No threats, no ultimatums that you withdraw all your legislation or we are going to go on a general strike. That's no good. No blackmail. I'd appeal to you on the other side to use whatever influence you have with the organized labour movement and the labour leaders to get them down to the table with us, and I guarantee I'll move heaven and hell to make sure that I make room for them.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the second member for Vancouver Centre seeks the floor under standing order 42.

MR. LAUK: In the minister's remarks he referred to a press report. He got the year and the place wrong, and he

[ Page 2256 ]

even misquoted the report, and the press report was a complete misrepresentation of remarks I made. I said that at the time, in 1976 or 1977, and I've said that in this House on, I think, four different occasions, in answer to that minister continually standing up and deliberately misleading the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time that I've asked that minister....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Please be seated, hon. member. The term "deliberately misled" is a term which cannot be used in this chamber. It requires mandatory that the Speaker instruct the member to withdraw the term unconditionally, and I so do.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LAUK: I withdraw that remark, Mr. Speaker.

But under standing order 42, the minister rose in his place and purported to quote from a news report. He was not referring to a news report, because he totally — inadvertently perhaps — misrepresented that news report. And this is the fourth time I've stood in this place and put on record that the news report itself was a misrepresentation of what I had said.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I rise under standing order 42 as well, Mr. Speaker.

The minister, during the course of his presentation, implied that I and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) were promoting violence in the streets, and that is an absolutely false statement. This is the first opportunity that I've had to correct that statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. That was withdrawn.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would certainly never imply that of either of those two members. I think I quoted reasonably fairly what they said in their speeches during the debate, but I would never say that either of those two members would promote violence in the streets, because I know they never would.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member, the matter is concluded. The question now is second reading of Bill 26.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 6

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

[6:45]

Bill 26, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1983, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, section 1 of the Municipal Amendment Act is the only provision of this bill — at least as I understand it — that was acceptable to the Union of B.C. Municipalities at its convention in Penticton. The UBCM passed a rather detailed and well-worded resolution with respect to this particular bill and asked the government not to proceed with any part of the bill except section 1. That is the section we are dealing with now. Section 1 relates to a provision in the Municipal Act whereby the council of a municipality shall not adopt a zoning bylaw until it has held a public hearing on it.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: You didn't need to applaud me for that statement. It is fairly common knowledge what that statement is. What you should be applauding is the Union of B.C. Municipalities, who looked upon this bill as offensive and objectionable and asked that it not be proceeded with except insofar as Section 1 is concerned.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And we are on section 1, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: I am on section 1, Mr. Chairman.

A municipal council, in seeking to adopt a zoning bylaw, shan't do so until and unless a public hearing is held. They are required to give notice about the hearing — the time, the place and so on — and to publish that notice in at least two consecutive issues of a newspaper that is circulated or published in the municipality. Then there are some other restrictions: that the last such advertisement or the last such newspaper publication shall be not less than 3 days nor more than 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. They set out in the advertisement the identification of the land to be affected, and in general terms what the bylaw is all about and where you can come to look at it; all of the details surrounding the proposed bylaw. They then can proceed to do it.

That of course became a cost factor to municipalities. The amendment seeks to add an additional provision to section 3

[ Page 2257 ]

of the act insofar as the notice of hearing is concerned: to mail or otherwise deliver it to the owners and occupiers of any real property within the area to be rezoned. The amendment to section 1 seems to make reasonable sense in terms of the cost factor aspect of municipalities, as it proposes that where the subject of the zoning bylaw is ten or more parcels owned by ten or more people, then it is not necessary to give the notice. Presumably this is to protect small holdings, small parcels of land held by individual owners, who, in addition to the advertisement in the newspaper or local periodical circulated in the area, would still need to have the notice mailed to them. Less than ten parcels of land owned by less than ten people. I can understand why councils would be agreeable to that particular provision, because it does save them some administrative work.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: What's the difference between some and a lot? It saves administrative work — some. I didn ' t use the word "some" in the sense that it was minimal; it's just a declaratory statement. It saves them some administrative work and money. I can readily understand a council's saying, "Yes, we'll opt for that type of provision," the modernization of it. The minister is responding favourably to that decision by the UBCM, who passed a motion saying this is a good feature of the bill. What strikes me as odd about it all is that the minister is not responding favourably to the other parts of the UBCM resolution which dealt with other aspects and did not want those other aspects to be proceeded with. If there is to be a trusting relationship, a responsive relationship between municipalities and the government, then there should be afforded to them at least the respect of paying attention to what they find, in terms of law, is not acceptable to them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are now dealing with the second reading of principle of the bill before us. We are in committee, and debate on committee should be strictly relevant to the clause in front of us, which is Section I at this point.

MR. HOWARD: A while ago, Mr. Chairman, there was a great declaration made in this House about the desirability on the part of government to meet with people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on Section 1 of Bill 9; we are not in second reading, we are not in the House, we are in committee. Please, your remarks will relate specifically to section 1.

MR. HOWARD: My remarks, Mr. Chairman, for the edification of anybody who is interested in listening, are on section 1. I have referred to it on a number of occasions in the course of making my comments. Just because hon. gentlemen opposite are getting a little gritty, a little touchy and are whimpering about the fact that they have to stay here all night doesn't give them the licence to continue to complain about the proceedings. If the government House Leader would just control himself for a moment and have some rational behaviour in the committee, perhaps we could proceed in an orderly fashion, which is what I'm trying to do.

There is a necessity, Mr. Chairman, for the government to meet with people who are affected by proposed law that will have some impact upon them. Section 1 will have some impact upon municipalities. What's wrong with talking about the need to meet and cooperate and to listen to opinions? Not a thing. In fact, there were some comments not too long ago by the government that it would move heaven and hell — and I use the quotation — in order to effect a meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will advise the hon. member one more time to relate his remarks specifically to the section or discontinue his speech. Section 1 of Bill 9 deals specifically with giving notice and the member will relate his remarks to that clause ahead of us. Please proceed in order.

MR. HOWARD: With respect, I would point out to the Chair that Section 1 does not deal with giving notice; it deals with not giving notice. If one is going to relate to the section, be precise about it; and with the necessity of not enacting legislation in the abstract, without regard to the effect that it has upon municipalities and upon the Union of B.C. Municipalities, who passed a motion specifically with respect to section 1. Isn't that right, Mr. Minister? I ask the minister, did the Union of B.C. Municipalities send to him a resolution passed at its convention recently in Penticton indicating that it, the UBCM, supported Section 1 of the bill?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Section 1 pass?

MR. HOWARD: I was posing a question to the minister, Mr. Chairman, with respect to section 1. Did the minister receive from the Union of B.C. Municipalities a resolution passed at its convention recently in Penticton saying that it, the UBCM, approved of section 1?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me correct the member. It says ten or more parcels owned by ten or more persons, not ten or fewer persons, as you stated. Yes, indeed, this has been heartily endorsed by the UBCM.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 1 pass?

MR. HOWARD: Don't be impatient. The minister obviously didn't hear what I said. I was putting the provision of the bill in the reverse context, which is why I referred to fewer than ten persons and fewer than ten parcels.

[7:00]

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: In dealing with this government, the whole world is in reverse. A more backward-looking and backward-moving group I have never seen in my life.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the section, please.

MR. HOWARD: If you would keep the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) from offending the standing orders — and he knows them, and you certainly know them, Mr. Chairman — then we wouldn't get into this kind of crossfire.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and so do all members, hon. member. If we can relate our debate strictly to the section in front of us, we won't have such outbursts.

[ Page 2258 ]

MR. HOWARD: Exactly. I asked the minister if the resolution in the communication that he said he received from the Union of B.C. Municipalities contained an objection to other features.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, he did receive it? Is that what "aye" means?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That could not be discussed under section 1.

MR. HOWARD: What cannot be discussed under section 1?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Items that would not be included in section 1.

MR. HOWARD: That's just what I asked the minister. Was there anything in the resolution...?

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Boy, you're touchy. Did you not get any sleep? Do you know why the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is touchy like this?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Skeena will relate his comments to section 1.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I stand on a point of order. Standing order 17(2) says: "When a member is speaking, no member shall pass between him and the Chair" — well, that's another matter — "or interrupt him, except to raise a point of order." All we have had so far in the few brief moments at my disposal are interruptions from the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. I would earnestly ask you to impose that standing order upon the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. Ask him to pay attention to it. He's the government House Leader; he's supposed to set the tone of activity — the tone of debate. The pattern of decorum should come from the government House Leader. But we consistently get abuses of the rules from him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That point is well taken. I'll remind the hon. member of standing order 43: "Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House or of the Committee to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name him or, if in committee, the Chairman shall report him to the House." I also advise the hon. member of standing order 20 which states that when a member is found to be grossly disorderly, he may be ordered to withdraw from the House.

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, I just listened to the member for Skeena talk about the House Leader and delaying tactics — and I'm just asking you how many times you must warn this member under section 43 of the standing orders before you ask him to sit down, and we continue on with this....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Until the Chairman becomes aware that it has to be done.

MR. HOWARD: Well, Mr. Chairman, you can see what's occurring here. In my attempt to pursue an orderly examination of section 1, I am interrupted by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we've settled that, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: I'm raising a point of order. No, we did not....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask you to direct your speech to section 1.

MR. HOWARD: Can't I rise on a point of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask you now to direct your speech to section 1.

MR. HOWARD: I wish to put a point of order to the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please state it then — briefly.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that while I am permitted to be interrupted in violation of the rules of the House, I am subjected to an admonition and a threat of something being visited upon me for my attempts to stay in order and stay on section 1. Now it seems to me that there's a discrepancy in the attempt to have the rules apply.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point's made and taken. To section 1.

MR. HOWARD: In other words, "Get back to Section 1 or out you go." That's all right, Mr. Chairman. I can understand the concern that members have.

I'd better read section 1 again, and (3.1) is the proposed new subsection to 720. I imagine that's in order. It reads: "It is not necessary to give the notice referred to in subsection (3).... That permits us, I submit, to go back and look at subsection (3) of the Municipal Act. But you can't read subsection (3) in the abstract, all by itself, with lines demarcated around it, because it has cross-references to another section of the act. In order for the whole thing to become intelligible for us, to understand what's taking place here, we need to look at that — which is what I was trying to do.

I asked the minister if he had received a resolution from the Union of B.C. Municipalities dealing with Section 1 of the bill. He said yes, he had. The next question I asked him was: did the resolution passed by the Union of B.C. Municipalities and sent to the minister support Section 1?

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I didn't hear him say anything about that, I just heard him say that he got the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I'm posing a question to the minister so we can understand what's going on here. Did the resolution that the minister said he received from the Union of B.C.

[ Page 2259 ]

Municipalities with respect to Section 1 say that the Union of B.C. Municipalities in convention supported Section 1?

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing an attempt here, in my opinion, to clearly be abusive of the rules. Surely the hon. member remembers that his question was answered in the affirmative. The hon. minister stated unequivocally that the section was partly endorsed by the UBCM. Constantly stating and restating the question, I would suggest, is being tedious, repetitious and clearly in breach of standing order 43. I would ask the Speaker to bring the offending member to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is very well taken. The question has been asked numerous times now.

Is there further debate on section 1?

MR. HOWARD: Well, I'm trying to find out from the minister whether the.... He may have said this. But you may remember, Mr. Speaker, that in the course of that interchange the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations was interrupting, and I may not have clearly heard what the minister said. I would like to know for my own edification whether the resolution which the Union of B.C. Municipalities sent to the minister endorsed Section 1 and said it received their approval.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman — through you to the member — I repeat that what Section 1 deals with here has been heartily endorsed by the municipalities now for quite some time.

MR. HOWARD: I am pleased to hear the minister say with such vigour that Section 1 has been endorsed by the municipalities enthusiastically, etc., for some time. Undoubtedly, that's why the minister is bringing it forward — which prompts me to ask the next question: why doesn't he appear attentive to what the Union of B.C. Municipalities says about other matters? Or is this a selective question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not within the scope of the section. That can be discussed in second reading of this bill or in the ministerial estimates, not in this section. Is there any further discussion on Section 1? Does the member for Skeena have further debate on Section 1?

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, section 1, as I said earlier, seeks to deal with section 3 of the bill. We need to look that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 3 will have to be discussed when we get to section 3.

MR. HOWARD: We are at section 3.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Subsection (3). I misunderstood you. Please proceed.

MR. HOWARD: I can't discuss what I'm about to discuss under section 3 of the bill, because it doesn't relate to the section of the act that we're now seeking to amend.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 1, please.

MR. HOWARD: I'm trying to find something in the Municipal Act itself. I ask the minister what is meant by "parcels" in section 1.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I read it; it's "parcels" — "ten or more parcels." Could the minister tell us what is meant by "parcels"? Are we talking about some things to be mailed or...? I wonder if the minister heard the question. I wanted to know what was meant by the word "parcels" in (3.1). Unless we can get some understanding of what that means.... It seems to be a somewhat awkward word to describe something owned by somebody: "...ten or more parcels owned by ten or more persons." What does "parcels" mean there?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. member might read the definition section in the act, where he will find the definition of "parcels."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Section 1 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: The member for Skeena is still on his feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You indicated you wished to speak. Please proceed.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, he can come back after I've finished my point.

Section 1, of course, amends section 720, which is the section which requires hearings for zoning bylaws. It is very difficult just to deal with this amendment without dealing with all of section 720, because subsection (1) of 720 — and you realize that this amendment does amend 720 — talks about not adopting a zoning bylaw until you have a public hearing, and it sets out the terms for public hearings. Subsection (2) of 720 talks about the notice of hearing and how it "shall identify the land...shall state in general terms the intent of the proposed bylaw" and state where it will be held and how it may be inspected, and so on; (d) is the "size, form and style of printing prescribed by regulation."

Then we get to subsection (3) under 720, and I think I need to read all of that subsection:

"The council shall, by bylaw, provide that notice of the hearing on a proposed amendment to the zoning bylaw having the effect of rezoning an area of the municipality from one zone to another zone must be mailed or otherwise delivered to the owners and occupiers of all real property within the area subject to the rezoning and within a distance specified in the bylaw from the area subject to the rezoning."

There are two things there that I want to note particularly when I get on to dealing with the amendment. One is the "owners and occupiers," and the other part is that it's all

[ Page 2260 ]

people in the area "within a distance specified in the bylaw." If you have a certain area that's going to be rezoned, then all owners and occupiers within a certain distance of that area must be notified by mail or as prescribed here.

[7:15]

What we're doing with this amendment is saying that it's not necessary to do that if there are ten or more parcels owned by ten or more persons — and you will notice that it's "owned by ten or more persons." I'm wondering just how the minister intends to deal with this where an occupier is involved, because there's a great difference between an owner and an occupier.

AN HON. MEMBER: What right does an occupier have in rezoning?

MRS. WALLACE: He would be notified if there are less than ten parcels, but if there are more than ten parcels the occupier would not be notified; nor would the owner be notified if there are more than ten parcels. Now you could well have an occupier on one of those parcels, with an owner living somewhere else. It's assumed that if there are ten parcels — and I can only assume that this is the thinking behind this, and I realize that the municipalities have agreed to go along with this.... What I am concerned about is that if you have an owner who does not live in that area, there is no way that he's going to see these public postings, and it may well be that the occupier who sees them doesn't advise him.

You may also have a strip-zoning change along a road, with a parcel on the other side of the road owned by someone who is not an occupier. How is he going to know about the zoning immediately across the road from his property? I wonder whether the minister has considered the problem of owner and occupier in this particular section. I would like his comments on this, as to whether or not he thinks he's infringing on the rights of the owner of a piece of property where there are ten or more parcels, or whether or not he is infringing upon the rights of the owner if there is a parcel within the given distance of this property and the owner is not able to see any postings.

I am also wondering why he decided upon ten. I know it's a good round number. But why ten? What's the magic in ten? Why ten parcels? It's not a usual number for any proposal; it's just a number. It might not relate to a geographical area. It might be two or three geographical areas.

It seems to me that this section may cause some problems. I know that the intent is to try to get away from some of the administrative and cost problems, but I wonder how this is really going to operate and whether you have put enough thought into drafting this section that it will work smoothly and avoid all kinds of problems later — maybe problems in court. Difficulties could well arise as a result of this round figure of ten and the fact that you are not really making any consideration for an owner who may not be an occupier, or for an owner of a piece of property within a given distance, or close proximity, who also may not be an occupier but simply an owner. I wonder if the minister would respond to those comments.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Considerable thought and attention was paid to the drafting of this section, Mr. Chairman, and the UBCM are very comfortable indeed with the section as drafted.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I was concerned that the minister didn't respond to the questions that were posed by my colleague the member for Cowichan-Malahat. She wanted to know why the number ten was chosen. Why is it that you have to have ten parcels instead of nine or eleven? Was there some reason for that? In other words, did the Union of B.C. Municipalities — and I assume that they have requested this change through the minister — request specifically the number ten, or is this something thought up by the minister himself? Or did staff in his own department advise him that ten would be better than whatever was asked for by the Union of B.C. Municipalities? The minister didn't deal with that number ten, and 1, together with my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat, am very concerned about it.

The other question I have, Mr. Chairman, relates to whether the Union of B.C. Municipalities executive made these representations, or whether there were individual councils involved.

MRS. JOHNSTON: What difference does it make?

MS. SANFORD: Oh, it makes a big difference. If the municipal councils in my area, for instance, had some special reason for making this request and the minister responded to that, but the UBCM didn't support it, then it seems to me that that would make a big difference, in terms of this particular amendment that we have before us. We still haven't had an answer from the minister with respect to the magic number ten.

I have one further question for the minister. I do hope that he is listening, because I would like to have an answer to this as well. I notice that the section we're amending here, which is section 720, refers to a council. I'm concerned about ten or more parcels in an area that's not covered by a municipality as such. What about those regional areas? It seems to me that to have ten or more parcels together within a municipality is not as likely to happen as in a rural area. If there are ten or more parcels there, do they have to go through the regular procedures provided for in the act?

Did the minister hear the question?

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: He wants to delete the proposed section 2....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Skeena is now recognized as speaking to the amendment on the order paper standing under the name of the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Interjection,

MR. HOWARD: What do you think I'm reading? I'm reading the order paper where the proposed amendment is. I can get along quite well without the help of the Minister of

[ Page 2261 ]

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). All I find is that he's mostly obstructionist in here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the amendment, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: He is. He's trying to divert my attention from an orderly debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister will come to order. The member for Skeena continues.

MR. HOWARD: Why don't you follow what the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) said and have a meeting with members of the opposition about the orderly progress of business here? We've made that offer on two occasions. The only time you accept is to interrupt me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this is going to be the last warning to the member for Skeena to be relevant in debate, particularly in committee.

MR. HOWARD: I pay strict attention to the Chair, as you know. I notice that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations doesn't, and he gets away with it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister was asked to come to order. Now the member for Skeena will come to order. To the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, section 2 of the bill seeks to strike out section 807 of the act, in essence, in substituting another word, but you have to read further in the bill to understand what that means, as far as the amendment in the bill is concerned. You have to here, I submit, refer to section 4 of the bill. Would you follow that to be the case, Mr. Chairman? Because section 4 says that section 807 and other sections are repealed. We need to have a look at what section 807 means now. It isn't just a simple question of substituting one number for another number, which is oftentimes the case in legislation. If one section is repealed the numbers automatically change, or should change. We are basically dealing with something entirely different.

The minister is now saying that section 805, which had the cross-reference to section 807 in it — and that was what he was seeking to do, to strike out section 807 initially — is now to be repealed completely. Section 805 of the act has another construction to it, because section 805 as it stands now is simply a cross-reference one about letters patent or orders referred to in other sections of the act. It says: "shall apply to every regional district and...municipalities." In substitution for that we now have a proposal that has a heading called: "Municipal cost sharing of electoral area planning." When you read through that, it has some disclaimers, as you can see, Mr. Chairman, about notwithstanding a certain section of the act, and it has cross-references to resolutions or bylaws of regional boards under sections 809, 814 and 816, and nowhere does it have any reference to section 807 — at least not that I can see. It is a complex proposal. Nowhere does it have any reference to sections 807 to 818, so it is the same thing. The effect is the same as before in terms of the reference to 807.

That is all I wanted to draw to the minister's attention. It reflects pretty sloppy draftsmanship on his part that he brings a bill into the House in the first instance which is so carelessly worded that it has got to be altered by an extensive amendment in the minister's name, indicating clearly that when this bill was drafted and brought into the House, the sole, single, solitary purpose was to serve private interests and not the public interest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're getting beyond the scope of the section, hon. member. The section is quite specific, and I don't believe I can accept the argument that the member is trying to engage in at this point.

MR. HOWARD: You may not be able to accept it because of some interpretation of the rules, but it is valid and correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It deals with the principle....

MR. HOWARD: This bill came into effect to serve private profit, greedy interests.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think we have had quite enough. I have cautioned the member many times that he must be strictly relevant to the clause or amendment before us, and I am now going to ask him to speak specifically to that. This will be the last warning.

MR. HOWARD: Are you denying me the right to speak? If that's what you're doing, then that is just simply closure by another mechanism.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, to the section. Shall the amendment pass?

Interjection.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think we've had quite enough. Under standing order 20, I will ask the member for Skeena to withdraw from the chamber.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

[7:30]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, when the bill simply reads, "section number so and so is cut out and another section is put in," it is very difficult to confine your remarks just to numbers. You have to be able to talk about the sections involved. I think that I could be quite in order at this point if I wished to read all of sections 805, 807 and 809 into the record and then try to interpret how this amendment is going to fit in there. That would take a lot of time. Is that what we are going to have to do in order to be in order? If we make remarks relevant to these various sections without specifically reading them into the record, are we going to be asked to leave these chambers? I'm just a little bit upset, Mr. Chairman, as I rise to speak here after what you have done to my colleague.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the record will show why the member for Skeena was asked to withdraw. It was because the remarks were unparliamentary, out of order and not relating at all to the amendment before us. From what I've heard of the debate from the member for Cowichan-Malahat, it appears to be in order and quite specific to the amendment.

[ Page 2262 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Section 2 amends section 805. Section 805 reads: "Notwithstanding any letters patent or order, sections 807 to 818 inclusive apply to every regional district and all member municipalities are participating member municipalities, but this section does not affect any letters patent provisions with respect to the basis of the apportionment of cost." What the bill does is remove section 807 and substitute 809. The reason that it does that is because of the section we're going to be talking about after we're through with this section. Now how do we isolate our debate without getting on to the next section? It becomes extremely difficult. If we take out 807 and substitute 809, we find that what we're really doing in this section is removing 807. Section 807, by subsection (3), is going to be repealed. Section 807 is the section which provides for regional boards to prepare regional plans. In fact, it makes it mandatory that they do that: they "shall prepare...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I do appreciate the dilemma. To assist the member, we are on the amendment. On page 21 of our orders, the whole amendment is detailed before us, and that is what we are speaking to now. The amendment is substituted for section 2 in the bill, so debate right now would be totally on the amendment as contained in the orders.

MRS. WALLACE: Then, in fact, we are not getting rid of section 807 in this particular subsection. What we're doing is putting in a new section 805.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Correct, hon. member, and section 2 as printed in the bill is deleted.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I have it here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's totally deleted. There is no reference to 807 now in the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: Now we're getting back into all kinds of other sections, including sections 787, 809, 814 and 816. I guess those are all the sections we're getting into in this amendment. As I understand this amendment, what we're really doing is saying to municipalities that they no longer have to participate in any of the costs involved in a regional board. But the thing we're not doing in this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is the thing that I referred to in debate on the matter of principle. We are not removing from municipalities their right to bring their weighted votes into decisions that affect regional areas.

If I'm wrong in this, I would like the minister to stand up and tell me. He is saying that municipalities no longer have to pay toward regional boards, but municipalities can come in with their heavily weighted votes and make decisions for regional areas. That is utterly unfair, Mr. Chairman, if that is what this amendment is doing. I would like the minister's comment on that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would like it clearly understood by the members on the opposite side that here is a classic example of our having listened to the people out there. Indeed, this amendment is the result of having listened. The amendment gives those municipalities who may feel that they could be affected by a settlement plan on their fringe area the opportunity of having some say in the development of that plan. With that voting authority, then, comes the responsibility of sharing in the cost. That's what this does. It's giving them that opportunity. It's a one-person, one-vote system for the regional district boards in respect of decisions involving electoral area official settlement plans, zoning and subdivision bylaws, and development permits. It doesn't get into an area where there is any spending involved; it's strictly as it would apply to land use decisions, and very fair indeed, and very popular, I might say, at that.

MRS. WALLACE: Subsection (3) of the amendment says: "Notwithstanding a regional district's letters patent, a member municipality, other than an electoral area, may, before October 1 of any year, notify the board that it will no longer participate in or share the cost of the preparation, adoption and administration of plans, permits or bylaws referred to in subsection (2)...." So that means they are out, they have no responsibility, but they still maintain their right to vote, and that is what I object to, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, that is incorrect. This section you just referred to allows the regional board, as it is preparing for a budget, to determine whether a municipality will participate in a plan or not. If they do not participate in the cost of a plan, then they do not have a vote. And why should they? That is the thrust of this whole amendment. That is to say, if a municipality feels a settlement plan could have an impact on their municipality, then they may wish to have a vote, and they may have a vote; if they do have a vote, they share in the cost of the plan. On the other hand, if a settlement, plan has been done in some other part of the region that has absolutely no bearing on their municipality and would have no impact whatsoever, then they also have the decision to make as to whether they wish to have a vote in that planning process or not. If they should decide not to, then they are not compelled to participate in a financial way.

MRS. WALLACE: What the minister says is all well and good, but if that is the case, then why isn't he amending the voting section of the act? Because the voting section of the act is very specific. It says that a municipality does have the right to vote at a regional board in matters relevant to regional districts. If you don't amend that act, I don't care what the minister says when he stands in this House — if that voting section is not amended, those municipalities are still going to have the right to vote.

MS. SANFORD: I think the points the member for Cowichan-Malahat made are very valid. It is specific in the act that those municipal councils can vote on regional boards, and that section is apparently not being amended. It is interesting that this amendment, as contained on the order paper, has in fact more sections and more words in it than the original act that is under debate. The minister said he was listening to the people out there. By "people," does he mean the Union of B.C. Municipalities, does he mean individual councils...?

MRS. WALLACE: Or does he mean Delta?

MS. SANFORD: A very good question.

I would also like to know how this particular amendment, in terms of the planning and the adoption of an official settlement plan, affects the islands and the Islands Trust

[ Page 2263 ]

people, because they have been involved in a lot of public hearings coming up with plans. How does it affect the kind of tax they are going to have to pay towards these official settlement plans? I will just wait until I get the attention of the minister.

As the minister knows, the planning and the adoption of an official plan for the islands is very important, because we must preserve those islands and the unique nature of the Gulf Islands. How does this section, in terms of their abilities to arrive at official plans, in terms of the costs that they might incur...? Those are some specific questions for the minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The answer to your first question.... My office, as I have stated many times before, is open to UBCM officers. As a matter of fact, we had a very successful, productive and friendly meeting the other day. My office is always open, and I am also available to individual municipalities, mayors and aldermen. I have them all come to see me, and I listen, and we have a very good relationship. As far as the Islands Trust is concerned, to answer the member, Mr. Chairman, they are a regional district like any other regional district, and there will be no special treatment for one over another. I agree with you; yes, we must preserve those islands. We will do so in the most efficient manner that we know.

MS. SANFORD: The minister gave a general statement about his office always being open and him meeting with Union of B.C. Municipalities officials, executive members, individual members, individual mayors and so on, but I am wondering. The minister stated specifically that he was listening to people, and as a result of listening — presumably following the introduction of this bill — he then amended section 2 again and the amendment that we have here in section 2 is greater than the entire bill that he presented to us in the first place. Who specifically requested this section 2 that we have on the order paper? He had already brought in section 2. I don't know who he was listening to then, but who is it specifically he was listening to when he amended it for the second time? He said it was in response to people making representations. Who made those representations, Mr. Chairman? Would the minister answer that?

[7:45]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I apologize, Mr. Chairman. Would the member please repeat the question?

MS. SANFORD: It delays the proceedings if the minister is not listening when the members are asking questions about this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that. Perhaps the member can repeat the question.

MS. SANFORD: I'll try again.

Is he listening now? Thank you.

The minister informed us that the amendment on the order paper, which amends the bill before us, was brought in as a result of his listening to people. I asked him which people. Was it the executive of the Union of B.C. Municipalities? Was it individual councils? Was it regional board representation? The minister then got up and made some very general statements about his door being always open to individual mayors, aldermen, Union of B.C. Municipalities executives and so on. Who specifically was the minister listening to when he amended this section which appears on the order paper?

Is that clear enough, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes. I was listening to all those folks out there who are affected by such things as settlement plans. For your interest, I believe the first regional board I met with when I was appointed minister was the board of the Islands Trust. We had a very good, friendly meeting indeed. But yes, this is the result of listening to the broad scope out there of those affected by settlement planning.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I don't quite know how I am going to do this without being ruled out of order but I think it is extremely important. Perhaps you would bear with me. The minister has indicated that this subsection 3 of his amendment is going to remove.... If a municipality decides that it doesn't want to share in costs, it will automatically not be voting on a regional board. In relation to that I see no amendments on the order paper to amend section 779 of the Municipal Act. This is what I would like to read into the record:

"779 (1) On the regional board,

"(a) the number of votes to which a member municipality is entitled is the number obtained by dividing the population of the member municipality by the voting unit, and if the quotient is not an integer the number of votes shall be the next greater integer;

"(b) the number of directors to which a member municipality is entitled is the number obtained by dividing the number of votes to which the member municipality is entitled by five, and if the quotient is not an integer the number of directors shall be the next greater integer;

"(c) no director shall have more than five votes; and

"(d) the votes to which a member municipality is entitled shall be distributed as evenly as possible among its directors, and the council or trustees, as the case may be, shall notify the regional board of the number of votes assigned to each director."

As long as that section stands in the act, what the minister is telling this House is absolutely incorrect, Mr. Chairman. He either has to bring in another amendment or withdraw this one, or do something if he is going to have what he says he wants to have here. He is taking away all the responsibilities for a municipality to contribute in any way financially or anything else, and leaving them all the powers to control those regional boards.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I will repeat for the last time that this provides for one person, one vote for regional district boards in respect of decisions involving electoral area official settlement plans, zoning and subdivision bylaws and development permits. If you, Madam Member, allow that to sink in and think of it, then you'll realize you're off on another tangent.

MRS. WALLACE: What section are you reading? What are you reading, Mr. Minister?

[ Page 2264 ]

MS. SANFORD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, there is no quorum in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I'll ring the bells and see if I can summon a quorum.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the minister read something or other that said one member, one vote, and if they withdrew they wouldn't have a vote. Could he please tell me what he was reading from, because I have read this amendment and I don't see that anywhere. I have read the act and I know what section 779 says.

Did the minister hear my question?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I've heard it many times.

MRS. WALLACE: The last time the minister was on his feet he read something about one member, one vote, and that member not having a vote if the municipality had withdrawn. Would he please tell me what he was reading so I can find that reference?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Madam Member, I have a few notes just to keep myself up to date on the proceedings here, but the amendment deals with land use matters.

MRS. WALLACE: Section 779 of the act sets out the voting requirements for municipalities and regional boards — clear, concise, absolutely clearcut. Now he gets up and mumbles something about having some notes that say something or other. That doesn't change the legislation. That doesn't change the fact that that's what the act says. He can mumble his notes all he likes, but when it comes to a case in point, we know what's going to happen: those municipal councils are going to have that kind of representation on the regional board. If in fact this amendment passes they'll have that representation without paying one red cent towards the costs involved, and I object to that, Mr. Chairman, absolutely.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. In committee it seems to me that usually it's very difficult to go through the intricacies of some of these sections, especially ones as complicated as amendments to the Municipal Act, which has hundreds of sections. Usually the Minister of Municipal Affairs has more than just his deputy present. I wonder if, in the light of that, the minister wishes to send for his deputy and maybe go on to another bill, or.... Just in the interests of moving the business in an orderly and timely fashion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that suggestion is up to the committee. There are others, though.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that my deputy is here, and if that will satisfy the opposition, I will ask him to join me.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment on the order paper introduced by the minister which indicates that municipal councils can decide to opt out of regional boards as far as sharing expenses. Section 779 of the Municipal Act sets out the voting privileges of municipal representatives on regional boards. My question to the minister is: does he propose to amend those voting privileges if in fact he is going to take away the responsibilities for municipalities to participate in cost-sharing and administration? I do not believe it is balanced or proper to allow municipalities to come in with block votings and weighted votes, which in all probability will be the majority of votes on regional boards, at the same time that they're allowed to opt out of all costs and involvements. That's the question. And without amending section 779 that's what's going to happen.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: That section calls for the weighted vote, and we're saying in here that it doesn't apply to sections 809, 814 and 816. I repeat, Madam Member — through you, Mr. Chairman — that it's dealing with land use matters only.

MS. SANFORD: I did not get a satisfactory response to the questions that I posed to the minister with respect to the section that we have on the order paper — not the bill itself, but the section that's on the order paper now. Was this section requested, approved of or discussed the other day when the UBCM met with the minister? What did the UBCM executives say about this section when they met with the minister? Was the UBCM aware of this new amendment on the order paper that's not contained in the original bill? If so, do the representatives of the Union of B.C. Municipalities support this section? If they don't, could the minister please advise which people he was listening to when he brought in this second amendment, which, as I pointed out, contains more information and words than the original bill itself, the entire bill that's before us. Mr. Chairman, are there some mayors who have the minister's ear?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Is it the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) who wants to know what section we're on? It's the amendment to section 2, which already amends another section, 805, 807 or whatever it is. It gets a little confusing with all of these numbers.

I would specifically like to know who the minister listened to. Who is asking for this particular change at this time? Is it individual municipalities? Mayors? Developers? The executive of the Union of B.C. Municipalities? Who? I think that we have....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, it could be companies. Is it a developing company, an individual developer? I think it is very important for us to know whether the Union of B.C. Municipalities support this section. They met with the minister just a few days ago. At that time, did they give support for this amendment that's now on the order paper? I wonder if the minister would answer that question for us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

[8:00]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, does he have a memory problem this morning? Is he so tired that he can't remember what the UBCM said the other day? You have not answered that question, Mr. Minister. I would like to know specifically

[ Page 2265 ]

who approves this. Are there any elected officials who approve it?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I don't mind repeating an answer. But, you know, this can go on and on. It seems to me that unless you get the answer you want you're not going to be satisfied. I have travelled extensively throughout the province. I met with mayors and councils all over the province. I spent almost all of my time at the UBCM convention — every half-hour we had councils in there. I can tell you that this amendment is the result of listening to those people out there in the councils.

MR. BLENCOE: One of the particular problems with this section — and I'm going to ask the minister directly — is the fact that the UBCM and the elected officials are having to react to this legislation and new sections after the fact and are having difficulty determining exactly what the minister wishes to do. Indeed, he does appear to change his mind at whichever meeting he attends. He keeps saying that he's met with a lot of people. Is this amendment the result of requests from the UBCM executive?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the minister, the committee will be advised that questions can be asked but they do not necessarily have to be answered.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: For the third and last time, I have been meeting, listening to and respecting people throughout this province who serve on municipal councils.

MR. BLENCOE: That is not my question. The minister is avoiding the issue. The UBCM executive over and over again has asked to have some meaningful dialogue with the minister. The UBCM specifically asked that this bill not proceed. They gave him their alternatives. Yet the bill was proceeded with, and we now have a new amendment, which again I am sure was a surprise to the UBCM executive. Will the minister please answer my question, not by saying he has met with people here and there but answer specifically. Is this amendment the result of meetings and requests by the UBCM executive'?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The latter part of the member's debate was quite in order, but there was some preamble that is not specific to the clause or the amendment before us.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, it is really important that the minister be specific in where this amendment is coming from in terms of the request. You cannot play at working with 1,400 elected officials in the province of British Columbia who are part of the UBCM, a UBCM that should be an integral part of drawing up these sorts of bills and amendments. Again I have to ask the minister, despite his saying he has talked to a number of people across the province. I will rephrase my question, turn it around a little bit. Has the UBCM executive endorsed this amendment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

MR. BLENCOE: The minister keeps saying that his door is open to consultation with the UBCM, which is obviously charged with the responsibility of trying to guide municipalities through these difficult times, not only in financial matters but in planning matters. He says that he is prepared to meet with the UBCM executive on various aspects. Does he know whether the UBCM executive has endorsed this amendment or seen this amendment, or knows the impact of this amendment? I believe the UBCM executive is entitled to a response to that question. Have they seen this amendment?

MR. NICOLSON: The amendment first appeared on the order paper on September 29. When one considers what has been happening here.... It is one thing for the members, it is another thing for the general public, it is another thing for the press to keep up with a Legislature which doesn't have a Hansard, and in which amendments are introduced....

Did the minister put out a press release with the introduction of these amendments?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be going a bit beyond the scope of the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister was at his microphone. I would suggest that he is a responsible person and could answer that question.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that is very germane to these amendments. Here are some very fundamental amendments which would seek to undermine the whole concept of regional districts. It is the old game of divide and conquer. It is the same as was done with the B.C. Teachers' Federation, when the right of compulsory membership was taken away. This is taking away the compulsory membership. It is a technique that has been used to divioe unions, and now it is being used to divide the union of municipalities, Mr. Chairman. It is not a Rand formula.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I ask the minister to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General will withdraw, please.

HON. MR. SMITH: In the absence of a better medical opinion, I would be delighted to do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, an unqualified withdrawal.

HON. MR. SMITH: I withdraw.

MR. NICOLSON: Would the minister admit that these amendments are the equivalent, for instance, of withdrawing a Rand formula from a union collective agreement or withdrawing compulsory membership from B.C. Teachers' Federation? Is that the intent of the amendment?

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I have a very simple question for the minister after following this debate since I arrived. If the member municipalities of the UBCM did not ask for this, is it the minister's own philosophy — I know he believes in deregulation — and his government's philosophy that is behind this amendment?

[ Page 2266 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I have to once more go back to the theme that we try to bring up with this minister. How is it possible — I put this to the minister and I wish he would answer in some reasonable way — for local government in these difficult times to make proper decisions about their municipalities and about planting per se when we have, once again, suddenly on September 29 an amendment to Bill 9...? The majority of the UBCM is still trying to get some resolution from the minister and he keeps saying he is open. His statement that he is open and is prepared to meet and won't do anything without consulting them is totally meaningless when he knows and we all know that this amendment has been introduced without any reference to the UBCM executive. Will the minister, this morning, put this amendment aside until the UBCM executive and staff have had the opportunity to peruse this amendment and to meet with the minister? Will he do that? I believe that is a reasonable course of action when you are dealing with 1,400 dutifully elected people who try to make proper decisions and informed decisions. Will he put it aside until he has had an opportunity to hear from the UBCM?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: No? Okay.

MR. NICOLSON: I'd like to have it clear — maybe for the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith).... I don't know what his experience is. His experience in municipal affairs, I assume, was as the mayor and alderman for a goodly number of years of the municipality of Oak Bay, in an area where almost each member of the regional district.... Certainly a great number of them were contiguous municipalities, but there were some unorganized areas. It would seem to me that it would be very similar to what might happen in the regional district of Central Kootenay, in which you do not have contiguous municipalities but you have a number of municipalities and rural areas. What is the effect going to be on planning if one person in the legal sense — a corporation or whatever.... If one of these member municipalities opt out, then what is going to happen with the rest? I wouldn't want to start even using names in this analogy. I wouldn't want to pick a municipality in the Capital Regional District or in the regional district of Central Kootenay to say, for example, if such and such a municipality did — but if one of them do, then what happens to the rest? They are almost fools to go on carrying on the function of the other municipalities. What if the largest municipality in some area drops out and decides that it is not going to participate in the planning function? The planning function is still going to go on. What is the recourse? I can only see two recourses — either others drop out or they take revenge on the area that didn't by perhaps loading things up on the borders and periphery in a manner which they know would antagonize that area.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, settlement planning will continue in our province. It is necessary in some areas. I don't believe that because one municipality where the taxpayers are not going to directly benefit from it should not decide to contribute, that is going to put an end to settlement planning in the province. I can assure the member of that.

MR. BLENCOE: A new tack if we can, to try to get the minister to be accountable to the UBCM in some way. When the minister talks about consultation and listening to the UBCM, will he define his meaning of consultation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That might be better discussed under the ministerial estimates. We are in a specific amendment on Bill 9. We must relate our remarks totally to the amendment before us on the order paper.

[8:15]

MR. BLENCOE: Let me try and rephrase that so it reflects the section we're on, Mr. Chairman. When I asked the minister about this Section in terms of the UBCM perusing it, he said that he was open to consultation on anything to do with municipal affairs and presumably this section. Given that it is quite clear that the UBCM executive has not had the opportunity to look at this particular amendment, and he says he wants to work with them — which is becoming extremely difficult — could he define, in terms of the UBCM being allowed to participate with him in some decision-making on municipal affairs, what he means in terms of this particular amendment? How can they consult him on this? What are his terms of reference for consultation on this particular amendment?

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 9

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 19.

[ Page 2267 ]

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move second reading of Bill 19, which is an amendment to the Institute of Technology Act. Basically, without all the pizzazz that I suppose that we could throw in, it involves three basic items: (1) appointments, all of which are to be made upon completion of the bill, and eventually after the regulations have been included are to be made by the Crown; (2) policy and directives, which the Crown and provincial government reserves unto itself, comparable to the policy which was incorporated within Bill 20, which is now being completed during this session; and (3) an item which I don't think is too significant within the amendment bill — the reference that where a conflict could conceivably arise between a proposed section which is to be added, in any decisions made subsequent to July 7 and before the passage of this particular amendment the bill itself will take precedence.

There are a number of things I wish to refer to. I think the parallel between Bill 19 and Bill 20, which has been completed, is important. There's some reference to the history of BCIT and I think the importance that BCIT will play in the future in the role of the ministry. I think it should he said now that, although I'm new to the ministry, I've certainly been impressed with the significance and the importance of the British Columbia Institute of Technology, and the tremendous popularity of that institute with the people of British Columbia. Since 1964, as I've mentioned, it has become a real force in technological education, and as we all know the BCIT certificate is in considerable demand.

With respect to the issue on policies and directives, in 1981 there was a ministry task force which pointed out the need for upgrading some of British Columbia's technological education in engineering and health areas. BCIT also pointed out this particular matter and did make reference to some of its operating and capital requirements and staff renewal needs, and they have been pressing in this area.

[8:30]

One of the things that we're concerned about, when we talk about policy and directives, is rationalization of a number of programs which are offered by colleges and this particular institute in the lower mainland. I suppose you won't find offhand many of the principals of these institutions saying too much about rationalization, but I remember that in the first meeting I had after assuming this portfolio I raised this item, because we did find a fair amount of duplication in the lower mainland among all the colleges, and the interest of each college to add as many programs to their curriculum as they could. But there is a considerable cost factor in it. One of the first things I did was in the psychiatric nursing program at BCIT. BCIT is filled to the gunwales, and I thought it might be important that we move that particular program to another institution. This requires some initiative, and it's being done.

There was some issue, although it wasn't expressed with too much force, involving the appointments. I thought it was rather interesting: when the bill was introduced a statement was made by the present faculty representative on the BCIT board, and I quote what he is reported to have said, as published in the Vancouver Sun: "I can understand why they" — meaning the government — "are making these changes. I assume that the idea is to remove members who might have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, rather than being primarily concerned about the whole institution or the education system as a whole." So when you look at the present act, you will see the provision for a number of appointees, eight of which are made by the government. The other seven come from a number of specific areas. In order to draw the parallel to Bill 20, as I mentioned earlier, all appointments will be made by the Crown provincial.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

But I think it should go without saying — and, as a matter of fact, two recent appointments were made — that when you look at the existing act, one of the sections makes reference to three members to be appointed by the L-G-in-C: one from the health division advisory committee, which they have; another from the engineering division advisory committee; and a third from a business division advisory committee. I might mention that two, as a matter of fact, who were on those committees have been — one has been, and the other is in the process of being — appointed, because of the particular interest which they represent.

The other provision in the existing act makes reference to an appointment from the academic faculty, and, of course, I read to you the statement which was attributed to Mr. Richard Yates, where he said he could understand why.

1 know the position will be voiced by the opposition that this is a grab by government for control of some kind, and I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and all members, that there is nothing of the sort at all. I am entitled after consultation with the boards to issue policy and directives. These directives are to be overriding factors in, perhaps, board decision-making and contracts entered into by the boards. My real concern, however, is for institutional autonomy; I made it clear under Bill 20 that I think our objective ought to be to ensure as much local autonomy as we can in both the colleges and this particular institute.

Moving along, a number of other program areas have been discussed with BCIT, and this will be done in order to free up attention, room and money for concentrating on vital technologies. Among these program possibilities are moving pre-technical programs out to the colleges, and moving hotel and restaurant management out to one of our excellent lower mainland college programs and changing BCIT's business emphasis to more computer- and technological-related matters. If it is decided that BCIT must make any of these changes, it is important that we be able to make suggestions to the board. These are examples of possible changes only.

There are many other areas where intervention might be necessary, one of which is the foreign student guidelines, which ensure that the limited space at the institutions will go to Canadians and landed immigrants. With the demand for places at BCIT now and in the future, it is essential that these guidelines be enforced. I note the number of young people who have made application to this particular institute and the number who have been accepted, and I have to tell you that those who have not been accepted at BCIT are considerable in number because the space is just not available. I think that there is going to have to be some emphasis, when there is the available capital, to expand this institution, because of.... Its popularity is there for a reason; the service which it offers is in demand, and that's something we have to keep in mind.

[ Page 2268 ]

The amendment before the House now provides for a smaller board, but indications from those to whom I've talked at BCIT are that they would like a board of 9 or 11, and of course the bill makes provision for five or more.

The legislation also takes the board honoraria out of the act and puts them in the bylaws. Honoraria matters should not consume the time of the House. I think a bylaw should be subject to approval, and that's up to the BCIT board to make a determination as to what they are to be paid, but they are to be approved by the ministry and the Crown.

Also, the provision for public servants being on the board and receiving honoraria is continued, and I think that's only proper and fair. If someone happens to be working for the public sector in any form of government, there's no reason why such a person should be precluded from receiving the honorarium that is paid to someone who is otherwise occupied in the private sector. This really enables us to have public sector foresters, for example, or other technologists, and to allow them to contribute their professional expertise on an equal footing with other members.

One item in Section 1 which I questioned, and I would imagine that the members may wish to question it too, is the reference to the word.... We substituted the word "continued" for "established." I know this is getting into the actual bill itself. This is something which legislative counsel have advised.

There is not really very much else. It's not really that significant a bill, but it does something with respect to the policy of the government with respect to the size of boards and agencies. Number two, in Bill 20, when we referred to colleges there was a separation of trustees who were appointed to colleges or school board appointees made to college boards; that umbilical cord has now been surrendered, and I did give a host of reasons why the government felt this was appropriate. I know it was opposed by the opposition, but I think we made our point in that regard.

Concluding, Mr. Speaker, there are really two major items, one of which is the appointments; secondly, policy and directive in here. I might mention one other item. I understand some years ago when the College and Institute Act first came in there was considerable resistance by BCIT to being incorporated within the mandate of that legislation, and I suppose it is concern about identity. As the members know on both sides of the House, it often happens where particular constituent interests do wish to have, or retain if they now have, their own piece of legislation, creating their very existence.

I understand also, some time ago when the councils came in — the occupational, academic and advisory councils — there was nothing in the Institute of Technology Act to compel that institute to work in conjunction with the three councils which were abolished under Bill 20. However, there was never any particular reason, as a matter of fact, to worry about it, because there was a good relationship and compliance with the directives of the councils. That is why, if anybody is going to ask, there is no reference in Bill 19, as there was in Bill 20, with respect to colleges.

That's about all I have to say. I would move second reading.

MRS DAILLY: I want to congratulate the Minister of Education on his opening remarks. I feel that if the other ministers who have been introducing bills in this House took the same time to go into detail as the Minister of Education does, there would be a much better atmosphere in this House. I may not agree with what he said, naturally, because I just do not happen to agree with his philosophy, but I appreciate the fact that he is trying to explain to us in detail what his reasons are for bringing in the bill. It does save a lot of time in debate, because we will not have to keep trying to pry out of that minister the reasons for bringing in the bill. That is appreciated.

We do not intend to spend a great deal of time on this bill, not because it is not important to us, but as the minister has pointed out, the same philosophy that underlies Bill 19, the Institute of Technology Amendment Act, underlies Bill 20, the College and Institute Amendment Act, which we debated in considerable detail. Also we have committee further to debate it. I think it would be unnecessary to inflict upon the House a complete repetition of that debate from Bill 20.

[8:45]

1 do want to make a couple of points to the minister. We completely reject this. I suppose I have a very personal reason for rejecting it because when I was minister I happened to bring in the task force which recommended the change from the rule of government appointees only to an autonomous board of governors. Of course, here I am standing up ten years later, debating with the new Minister of Education, who has, in my opinion, simply turned the clock back again. I believe that pretty well explains the difference in our philosophies on the NDP side and the government side. We feel that the basic steps that the government is taking in this move are regressive. To make a couple of points on that, Mr. Speaker, when we moved to change from the straight government-appointed board which existed prior to 1973, we did not do it because the NDP felt that it was their philosophy, their idea as democratic socialists. What we did was to set up a task force, and it was not made up entirely of party members. There were some, but it did have a cross section of the public. That task force recommended to the government of that time that the institute should be administered by an autonomous board of governors rather than by the Ministry of Education. So you can see, Mr. Speaker, we've gone right back to where it was. The task force agreed — and I think this is terribly important.... Why did they recommend that you not just have the Ministry of Education or the government's appointees run the Institute of Technology? It was for three or four basic reasons. I do hope the minister took these reasons into consideration before he made this move.

The task force agreed that an autonomous administration would make the institute more efficient, reduce costs and would be more responsive to the educational needs of the community. It went on to say that "the present arrangement constitutes an administrative nightmare, with undue expenditures of time and effort by senior administrators to obtain or negotiate relatively minor decisions." That was the reason. It was also combined not only with a concern about efficiency and keeping costs down but with a basic philosophy of the task force that the community should be involved, to some degree, in an institute to which they all contribute their taxes. The problem, I believe, with the Social Credit government is that they are again embarking on a change which is based on their own dogma, their own right-wing, extremist attitude toward most political decisions. The problem that I think is underlying it is that they are not realizing that these apparently simplistic solutions are not simplistic in their final

[ Page 2269 ]

analysis. As a matter of fact they create, as the task force in 1973 said, an administrative nightmare.

You are going to have everything centralized again under the control of a few officials in BCIT, who.... Then there will be a board appointed by the minister. It is all right for the minister to say, more or less, "Trust me, the board will be representing the community," but another minister could take his place who believes, as I am afraid the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) did, that his appointments primarily reflected a special interest. I must say that I do not know the faculty member whom the minister quoted. I didn't see the quote that the minister gave us, but I accept it, where he seemed to suggest that this move would do away with the vested interests of the people who represented different communities on the board. My concern is that at least there were a variety of vested interests. But if we follow the Social Credit government philosophy, we could end up with just one vested interest running the institute.

I know that this is a very specialized institute in the sense that it has many successful graduates and that what goes on in that technical institute is very responsive to the new needs of today and the future. Even though the minister and I have a great respect for the Institute of Technology — as I know he does — we happen to disagree in this turning back of the clock to a very simplistic approach to running the institute, which I firmly believe is going to create a lot more administrative problems, and undue expenditures; also, the institute will not run efficiently.

Appointing members from the community, representatives of faculty, support staff and students, as the NDP government did, may not have created the most smoothly running board, but democracy never does. But the ultimate objective and aim of democracy, as we all know, is to give all our citizens some feeling that they are represented in the educational institutes which they not only are part of because they or their children — the citizens' children — may attend them but also because their taxes go towards those institutes. To deny them that right except by maybe some happenstance that they might be appointed, which usually does not happen, because we find that most of the people appointed by the Social Credit do represent one vested interest....

I don't want to run on and repeat things that have been said regarding other bills, but we reject this bill because once again it is moving toward extreme centralization, not only in the appointment of a board but also in the complete centralization of programming. That is not the democratic way to approach the running of our educational institutions. We regret it and cannot possibly support it.

Hon. Mr. Waterland moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Waterland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 8:53 a.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

SECTION 2, by deleting the proposed section 2 and substituting the following:

"2 Section 805 is repealed and the following substituted: "Municipal cost sharing of electoral area planning

"805. (1) Notwithstanding section 787, a resolution or bylaw of a board under sections 809, 814 and 816 shall be adopted by a majority of the directors who are at the meeting and entitled to vote on them.

"(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), all member municipalities of the regional district shall participate in and share the cost of preparing, adopting and administering

(a) official settlement plans under section 809,

(b) any bylaw or development permit made or issued under the authority of section 814, or

(c) any bylaw under section 816.

"(3) Notwithstanding a regional district's letters patent, a member municipality, other than an electoral area, may, before October 1 of any year, notify the board that it will no longer participate in or share the costs of the preparation, adoption and administration of plans, permits or bylaws referred to in subsection (2) (a) to (c).

"(4) Where notice is given under subsection (3),

(a) a municipality is no longer liable to pay the cost of or entitled to participate in the preparation, adoption or administration of plans, permits or bylaws referred to in subsection (2) (a) to (c), and

(b) the director of the municipality is not entitled to vote on any of those matters

[ Page 2270 ]

unless the municipality and the board agree that the municipality shall, in some limited way, participate in and share the cost of preparing, adopting and administering those plans, permits and bylaws and then only to the extent permitted by the agreement.

"(5) Where, after a board has passed a resolution authorizing the preparation of a plan or bylaw referred to in subsection (2) (a) to (c), a municipality gives notice under subsection (3), subsection (4) (a) and (b) does not apply to that municipality with respect to those plans or bylaws until

(a) the plan or bylaw is adopted, or

(b) 2 years have passed since the resolution was made, whichever first occurs."