[ Page 2611 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Review of budget proposals. Mr. Stupich –– 2611

PVI carpentry instructors. Mr. Rose –– 2612

Revenue-sharing grants. Mr. Blencoe –– 2612

Long-term care for children. Mr. Barnes –– 2612

Native court workers. Ms. Brown –– 2612

Paycheque deductions to Solidarity. Mr. Reynolds –– 2613

Pre-election advertising. Mr. Hanson –– 2613

Economy of B.C. Hon. Mr. Hewitt replies –– 2613

Employment Development Act (Bill 16). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Third reading –– 2614

Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 14). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr.

Curtis)

On section 2 –– 2615

Mr. Davis

Division

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 15). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On section as amended –– 2615

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Skelly

Ms. Sanford

Mr. D'Arcy

Division

On section 2 –– 2618

Mr. Stupich

Division

On section 4 –– 2618

Mr. Stupich

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Skelly

Division

On section 6 2621

Mrs. Wallace

On section 7 –– 2622

Mr. Stupich

Division

Public Sector Restraint Act (Bill 3). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

On the amendment to Section I –– 2622

Mr. Hanson

Ms. Sanford

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Division

Appendix –– 2632

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1983

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it was with a considerable degree of sadness that we learned on Saturday of the death of Colonel The Hon. John Robert Nicholson, who served as British Columbia's Lieutenant-Governor from July 1968 to February 1973. During the Second World War Mr. Nicholson served with the British Columbia Regiment, the Second Battalion, attaining the rank of colonel, and following the war he was awarded the Order of the British Empire for service on behalf of the Canadian government in Burma. After a distinguished career in the legal profession and as a business executive, he was elected as member of Parliament in 1962 and again in 1963 and 1965. During his service to his country in the House of Commons he held the portfolios of forestry, Postmaster-General, Citizenship and Immigration, and Labour.

Mr. Speaker, it would be greatly appreciated if you would express the heartfelt sympathy of the House and the utmost regret to his family and friends.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I just want to join in the words that have been spoken by the House Leader. J.R. Nicholson also happened to be a family friend, although there was a difference in politics at the lower levels within the family. He had a distinguished public career, and when he was in Government House he was always very agreeable and obliging to all the members of the Legislature and the public. He will be sorely missed.

MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of the House, and with the agreement of the House, the appropriate message will be sent.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery this afternoon are my caucus secretary, Joy De Casseres, and her sister, Mrs. Faith Buckley, who is visiting Victoria from Halifax, Yorkshire, England, and I would appreciate the House making her welcome, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two people who dedicate their lives to helping those who are in need. I speak of May Gutteridge of Vancouver and her assistant, Robert White. All members of the House will know of the remarkable reputation of Mrs. Gutteridge, who has given so much of herself in dedication to others. She has earned the Order of Canada for her work, and has been an inspiration to all those who serve in social services. I'd like the House to welcome both Mrs. Gutteridge and Robert White today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a very special visitor to Victoria — my wife, who is visiting from Kamloops. I would like the House to make her very welcome.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to introduce three people in the gallery today from the Canadian Jewish Congress: Mr. Irvine Epstein, national vice-president of the congress; Mr. Mark Silverberg; and Mr. Richard Israels. Would the House make them welcome, please.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Visiting us also in the galleries today is Mr. H. Stewart Hay, who is the designated minister counsellor to the Canadian Embassy in Peking. I think we would like to wish him the very best in his new posting.

Oral Questions

REVIEW OF BUDGET PROPOSALS

MR. STUPICH: A question to the Minister of Finance. The month of August was the first full month following introduction of the 1983-84 budget. In view of the fact that 10,000 jobs were lost to the B.C. economy during the month of August and 27,000 jobs were lost in September, for a total of 37,000 lost jobs since the budget was introduced, has the minister decided to conduct a comprehensive review of his budget proposals?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The answer to the question is no. However, I would like to observe that the unemployment rate is, as the member knows, simply one measurement of a provincial or a national economy. While I can't anticipate what the results may be, we have just closed the second quarter of this fiscal year, and I will be reporting to the people of British Columbia in about four weeks on the results of that quarter — as is the practice introduced by this government in terms of quarterly report — showing economic growth, receipts, level of expenditure: a general overview of the entire situation with respect to the provincial economy.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I was looking not just for a report of the situation, but whether the minister has any idea about changing plans. To follow that up, if 37,000 lost jobs in a period of two months is not enough, just how many lost jobs would it take for the minister to realize that there is something wrong with his budget proposals?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think the member, being an objective individual in this province, would also admit that a significant number of jobs were created in the period January to July-August 1983.

MR. STUPICH: The figures show there was a month-by month improvement from January until July inclusive. It was after the July budget was introduced, in August and September, that the figures turned in the opposite direction, which would seem to indicate that it is a result of his budget proposals. Once again, just how many lost jobs does it take for him to realize that his budget and its budgetary proposals are wrong for B.C. at this time?

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect, Mr. Speaker, that isn't what I said in answer to the earlier question. Every person who is seeking work in British Columbia today and unable to find it is of concern to this government. We have made that point repeatedly. The suggestion that I am waiting for a particular level to be reached — or hopefully not reached — in terms of unemployment in the province suggests that I am indifferent to the levels which have occurred over the past good many months. To specifically answer the member's question, nothing which I have seen and no report which I have received suggests that the budget introduced on July 7 of this year should be restructured in the course of this fiscal year.

[ Page 2612 ]

[2:15]

PVI CARPENTRY INSTRUCTORS

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. Last week I received a petition from the students of the TRAC program of PVI. I am told that the minister also received the same petition. This petition was protesting the firing of two carpentry instructors without cause and without regard to seniority. I wonder if the Minister of Education has investigated this allegation. If so, has he decided to take action to reinstate the instructors or some other form of action?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I would have to advise the member that I have not received a petition and I have had no evidence brought to me to date with respect to the two carpentry instructors — who, in fact, have lost their employment for whatever reason. I would have to take the question as notice and report back at the earliest opportunity.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would accept the petition that has come to my office. Upon receipt of that, would he launch his investigation, look into it, and report back to the House?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to accept the material. It would be one of the few times, as a matter of fact, that a member opposite has brought forth the evidence upon which his question is based. I'd be glad to receive it and follow through.

REVENUE-SHARING GRANTS

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Despite earlier assurances that revenue-sharing grants will be maintained at last year's level, the minister has now admitted that unconditional grants will be cut approximately 15 percent. Can the minister confirm that revenue-sharing grants will be cut by $30 million, and that this is made necessary by the dismantling of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I won't even comment on the latter part of the question, it's so ridiculous. However, I think that if that member, and again I'm repeating myself, because he seems to have difficulty in doing his research.... It was indicated that I would attempt to maintain the unconditional portion of the revenue-sharing within 15 percent of what it was last year. That, of course, has not been decided yet, and it won't be until the exact figures are received, at which time I will give a firm figure.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the minister at UBCM made it quite clear that there will be virtually no cuts in unconditional grants, and now we have the announcement of 15 percent minimum. Has the government decided the municipalities shall bear the cost of political decisions by the Social Credit government to hamstring resource revenue collection by the provincial government?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order, hon. member.

LONG-TERM CARE FOR CHILDREN

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Human Resources. The minister has refused to allow a disabled 13-year-old to leave the Queen Alexandra Hospital into the care of a Victoria couple. I'd like to ask the minister if she would advise whether this decision reflects a preference of the management of the Ministry of Human Resources to maintain patients in a $166-per-day health facility funded by the Health ministry rather than in the care of a family at the cost of $53 per day.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, at no time does the Ministry of Human Resources make judgments on the basis of the dollars charged for a patient or a client in a facility, be it a foster-care home or an institution. The member's question refers, I take it, to a specific case, and I would like to take the question as notice, if he'd be kind enough to give me the name. I assume he'll do that by note.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the minister if she has received an application by the couple to assist in having the youngster, but I understand from her remarks that she hasn't. I'd be glad to supply the minister with those names.

I would like to ask the minister when she will be tabling the interministerial study on services to severely disabled, handicapped children and adolescents, which was a study completed in mid –– 1981 –– I believe that may have been to the Minister of Health, although it was an interministerial study.

MR. SPEAKER: The question itself suggests future activity, hon. member. The question could, however, be restated.

MR. BARNES: Has she either tabled or decided to table? We can find no evidence that it has been tabled.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I will take the question as notice.

NATIVE COURT WORKERS

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Attorney-General, and it has to do with the 5 percent reduction in funding to the native court workers contrary to earlier assurances given to them. In view of the fact that this program is cost-shared with the federal government and they have already come up with their third of the money, is the minister now willing to reconsider the budget cuts announced in this area?

HON. MR. SMITH: The funding that was cut was cut close to the least of any of the bodies that provide direct legal services under contract. Organizations that are directly involved in providing these services were cut anywhere up to 10 percent. The native court workers received a 5 percent cut. This was done after a great deal of careful consideration to try to minimize the impact on the organization and to assist that organization in operating with that lesser amount of money. My ministry officials have worked with them, but there is absolutely no intention of altering that grant or restoring that funding. I am very pleased that they were able to receive 95 percent of what they received last year; in fact, they did very well.

[ Page 2613 ]

MS. BROWN: I wonder if the minister is aware that last year, for example, the native court worker program assisted 5,000 clients through the courts. Has he been advised, as I have been, that as a direct result of the cuts in legal aid the workload is increasing?

HON. MR. SMITH: The workload of all the organizations that were funded is increasing, and we were aware of that, yes.

MS. BROWN: In view of the fact that the minister is aware that the workload is increasing, can he tell me what provisions, if any, have been made to assist the native court workers in the very special job which they are doing for members of the native community?

HON. MR. SMITH: Some years ago when that program was separately funded, recognition was made of the importance of native court workers, and that recognition is still confirmed. But like all bodies that are receiving support from the government, in all branches of government everyone is operating with no more dollars, and many with fewer. Many in the public service, and many who are working for organizations receiving funding, are doing more work and putting in much longer hours, with fewer operating dollars to go around. Perhaps it's not always what would be wanted, but that's the way of life. People are making sacrifices; they're getting on and doing a good job with fewer dollars.

PAYCHEQUE DEDUCTIONS TO SOLIDARITY

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. On the weekend I was approached by a number of security guards at B.C. Place who are constituents of mine, and was advised that $5 has been deducted from their paycheques without their permission, to be donated to the Solidarity union. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour how these employees can go about getting back the $5 that's been taken without their permission, and whether the practice is an acceptable one in a free and democratic society.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the member would advise me, perhaps following question period, exactly which people are involved. I have had some indication myself that the service employees' union — I would imagine it's the same union — has asked the employers — or ordered the employers, rather — to check off $5 from each employee's paycheque for Solidarity. While I believe it is a bit unusual that a checkoff is actually requested for a political organization, it is within the rules of the legislation available at the present time. The only advice I could offer, as Minister of Labour, would be that the employees deal with their union. Certainly, if enough employees are concerned they have ways within the law to deal with the union.

PRE-ELECTION ADVERTISING

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Provincial Secretary. I filed written questions with the Clerk's office three and a half months ago with respect to pre-election expenses for television advertising paid for by the taxpayers of the province. Has the Provincial Secretary decided to table the costs of all pre-election advertising?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, that's a rather unusual question — a written question to be answered verbally.

It's a written question on the order paper and now he's asking for a verbal response. I have some difficulty determining how he wants me to reply to the question. If I answer the question now verbally, would he then expect a response on the order paper as well? I'll have to check some of the answers that might have flowed forward from the ministry. That question has been put to the ministry to determine precisely the dollar figure involved. I'll check. Maybe I have that answer in my office. If I have the answer in my office, I make a commitment to you, my friend, that I'll bring the answer back tomorrow.

ECONOMY OF B.C.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd just like to respond to a question I took as notice last week. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) wanted to know what other reports I had available to me that indicated that B.C.'s economy was going to outstrip the rest of Canada in the coming year. I could refer him to the Conference Board of Canada. I can, of course, refer him to the Royal Bank of Canada, which he was aware of. I can refer him to the Bank of Nova Scotia report on business, and to the Province's business report, indicating that B.C.'s business climate is warming up. In responding to the question, I'd be pleased to send these to him.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on Friday last, the hon. member for Skeena raised as a matter of privilege an allegation that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has been impeded and obstructed in his duties, contrary to long-established usages and customs of parliament. In support of this allegation the hon. member has cited standing orders 1, 19 and 20, as well as excerpts from Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, including references from the fourth edition of Beauchesne and the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May. The hon. member concludes his recitation of the rules relating to the power to punish disorder with two submissions: (1) "the ancient usages of parliament have been codified with our standing orders," and (2) "any remedy is within our own power."

The Chair completely agrees with the second submission that the remedy, i.e., the punishment of disorder, is within our own power. However, the first submission — that the ancient usages have been codified in our standing orders — is clearly contrary to the hon. member's own citation from Sir Erskine May, which states, under the heading "Dual source of modern powers to punish disorder," that "the power to punish disorder is regulated partly by practice and partly by standing order." Furthermore, the hon. member for Skeena's citation from Sir Erskine May in support of his matter of privilege clearly states, under the heading "Disciplinary powers of Speaker under ancient usage," as follows: "...it is still open to the House to proceed against a member according to ancient usage in preference to relying upon the powers conferred by standing order." Without doubt, then, as at Westminster, our rules and procedures are an amalgam of customs, usages and Speakers' decisions as recorded in the Journals of the House, and some codification of rules known as standing orders. In the result, the authorities which have been advanced to the Chair do not merely fail to support the basic proposition advanced by the hon. member, but they are in direct contradiction thereto. This being the case, the Chair is bound to conclude that there is no foundation established for a matter of privilege.

[ Page 2614 ]

[2:30]

I should also note that the hon. member, in his submission, raises the question of whether or not the standing orders of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom may properly be applied in this House pursuant to our standing order 1, last adopted on February 20, 1930, which refers us to the "usages and customs" of Westminster as far as they may be applicable to this House. Custom, by definition, means habitual or usual practice. It may well be that there was never any intention that a standing order of Westminster newly adopted from time to time would necessarily be applicable to this House. But it is a fact that the Westminster standing order providing for sessional suspension was adopted many years ago and the use thereof must now of necessity have become the usual practice or "custom" of that House, and therefore, under our standing order 1, qualifies as being applicable to our House.

On the other hand, if one still insists that the Westminster rule as to sessional suspension is not applicable per se to this House, then we have a complete void, as our own standing orders do not specifically provide for the consequences of a forcible ejection from the House after the repeated refusal, of a member to leave after repeated direction from the Chair. If such a void did then exist — although, for the reasons stated, the Chair is of the opinion it did not — the Chair made a ruling of the first instance, and that ruling was supported by the House. It must further be noted that in the 112-year history of this Legislature, no member, no matter how aggrieved he may have felt, has conducted himself in the manner recently witnessed by this House with the attendant result of forcible ejection.

In view of the gravity of the events of Wednesday last, however, the Chair cannot conclude the matter without some further comment on the specifics of those events. This Legislature and the institution of parliament belong to the people of the province, and we the members are merely its custodians. It is therefore imperative that there be a response to any perverted and distorted version which may have been presented to the public.at large in relation to the ejection of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. The record will show that over the preceding week the Chair had repeatedly and consistently taken the position that when the Chair declines to put a motion pursuant to standing order 44 the Chair exercises a power conferred upon it, but in doing so makes no ruling, as is also the case of exercising a power, pursuant to standing order 45A(3), when the Speaker interrupts the proceedings and puts the question.

Prior to his expulsion, the hon. Leader of the Opposition not only ignored the numerous previous statements from the Chair in explanation of standing order 44, but repeatedly and persistently sought to impose his own will, despite all efforts of the Chair to bring him to order. The consequences of disregarding the authority of the Chair, and thereby offending the dignity of the House, are well known to all hon. members and need not be repeated here. Furthermore, and of crucial significance, is the fact that the hon. Leader of the Opposition was well aware, having been specifically informed by the Chair on earlier occasions when he, the Leader of the Opposition, was personally involved, that failure to voluntarily leave the chamber would result in a sessional suspension if force was needed to bring about compliance. He cannot now be heard to complain, and it cannot be appropriately claimed on his behalf, that he is unable to perform his duties in the House when he, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, with full knowledge of the consequences, brought upon himself the manner of his removal from the chamber.

In these circumstances, the transgressor cannot, by any interpretation of the law of parliament, be magically transformed into the aggrieved party. The injured body is parliament itself.

Hon. members, on the date of my election to the high office of Speaker, and in accordance with the long-established tradition, I announced that I was a servant of this House. In keeping with that tradition, I now invite both House Leaders to attend the Speaker's chambers, should it be their desire to avail themselves of this office for further discussion purposes. I now so invite such a move.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.)

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 16; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Bill 16, Employment Development Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

GASOLINE (COLOURED)
TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 14; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

[2:45]

On section 1.

[ Page 2615 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section I as amended approved.

On section 2.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman I spoke in second reading against this bill, and basically my opposition was related to this clause. My argument was that the tax which will now be imposed is far too high. It will drive business out of the province and add to the numbers of unemployed in the province. I would like to see this section modified to the extent that the tax would be reduced by approximately two-thirds. Therefore I would propose a change in the complex formula appearing in clause 2 near the bottom of the page, and I would change the figure "21.28" to the figure "7.0."

I wasn't aware that this bill would come up as quickly this afternoon, and therefore I don't have a written amendment. I realize that the weight of the government is behind the bill. I would, however, like to see a vote held so that my opposition to the bill in its present form can be fully expressed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As you stated yourself, the Chair cannot accept the amendment unless it is presented in writing.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 40

NAYS — 1

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move amendment 2.1 standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 3 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Bill 14, Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Amendment Act, 1983, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 15, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 15; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated in second reading that his ministry had done studies on the effect of various measures proposed in this legislation. I wonder if he could tell us, particularly with respect to the change in the tax on the sale of automobiles, if any work or studies were done indicating that this would not have a bad effect on the sale of smaller automobiles as opposed to larger ones.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed this pretty carefully. I can't offer the member or the committee detailed statistics with respect to this particular measure. I think the tax gain to the province is going to be pretty much of a wash. However, there was some criticism — considerable criticism, as a matter of fact — and some confusion in the community at large when I introduced the variable rate earlier. I did so at that time as a conservation measure, and in an attempt to assist those who purchase smaller automobiles. There are perhaps those in this room today who would know more about this than I — someone on the other side might say that almost anybody would know more about this than I — but the fact of the matter is that smaller automobile engines do not necessarily mean a lower-priced automobile. Therefore that which we were attempting to do pleased some dealers and some consumers, but it angered some consumers and caused difficulty for some automobile dealers. Most of the concern expressed came from consumers. As I say, I think the key point is that smaller — as defined under the previous act

[ Page 2616 ]

— is not necessarily less expensive. It was for that reason that I decided, after considerable review within the ministry — this is not a matter discussed with the executive council or with caucus; it was a tax matter to be decided with the two or three officials who assisted me in this matter — that we would return to the straight rate.

[3:00]

MR. STUPICH: At the time we went to this variable rate for autos I wasn't under the impression that we were trying to persuade people to buy less expensive automobiles; rather, that we were introducing this as a measure of energy conservation. Although we seem to have a glut of petroleum products at the present time, in the longer run it is still important that people have this idea of energy conservation fixed in their minds. It's not something that comes and goes with the changing economic conditions, but more and more people should be concerned about the depletion of this depleting resource. If it were a sound measure from the point of view of impressing upon people the need to conserve, particularly nonrenewable types of energy, then what were the arguments within his ministry that persuaded him to change it? Does he feel it's not important any longer to persuade people to conserve energy? I am just wondering what the arguments were.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I attempted to enumerate these for the member for Nanaimo in my last remarks. Yes, conservation was certainly one of the major factors under review at the time of the introduction of the variable rate. But again, experience insofar as the ministry and my office were concerned indicated that a number of people had some problems with it. Perhaps they liked a particular model automobile which was just above the cutoff point for one of the percentages to be applied. Conservation remains important, and I would not want to stand in front of this committee and say it is no longer important. The fact is that quite apart from conservation the other aspect, which I think I spoke on at the time of the introduction of the variable rate, was to assist those purchasing "smaller-engined automobiles."

MR. STUPICH: The argument that some people want to buy automobiles that are a little more expensive than the benchmark at which the rate changed could also be applied to meals. There are some people who would like to have meals that cost more than $7, as opposed to those who, while they might like them, can only afford meals that are less than $7. I think that particular argument is really not worth very much. It was introduced as a sound energy conservation measure, and in my opinion it is a shame that it is being abandoned. That was the most important argument, and the only one that really had any influence on me: that is, that it was a conservation measure. I believe we are soon going to reach the day — I hope we are — when once again there will be a lot more consideration paid by the government, whoever is the government of the day, to this idea of energy conservation. It should be a continuing education program. The idea of hitting people with a higher tax if they are going to be wasteful of energy.... And I am one of them; I drive a heavy car. I think I shouldn't be, from the point of view of energy conservation, but I am willing to pay that price, to pay that penalty, and I am conscious of it every time I fill up.

I am opposed to that aspect of this particular section. Others may want to say something about it.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I share the concerns of the member for Nanaimo. When this measure was first introduced, although at the time I think the minister did mention smaller engines, the point was mentioned in relation to energy conservation in those motor vehicles. Granted, at the time liquid fuels appeared to be in short supply and now there is apparently a glut. But that should be irrelevant to this measure. Even though there appears to be a glut of liquid fuels on the market it doesn't seem to have had much effect on the price of gasoline or of diesel at the pumps, which continues to go up regardless of the price of these fuels worldwide. I am concerned that the minister is doing away with this measure at this time because there is another distinct advantage to encouraging people to buy smaller, more energy-efficient cars. Most of the oil companies in this country are controlled outside of the country, and that money goes outside of the country; whereas if you buy smaller quantities of fuel and use it more efficiently, use it in energy-efficient cars, then you have disposable income remaining which can be spent in your community to create jobs and improve the economic well-being of that community.

It seems to me that this measure brought in now by the minister is counterproductive. If there was a problem around the definition within this section of a smaller motor vehicle, or of a motor vehicle with a smaller engine, then the minister should have defined energy-efficient vehicles with more precision. The minister is capable of doing that because the information is provided by the federal Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, which every year provides a schedule of energy-efficient motor vehicles. The minister could have established his cutoff points based on that schedule. I think it's regrettable that the minister has now equalized the tax rates on cars which are energy efficient and those which are inefficient. We should be encouraging the manufacture in Canada of energy-efficient vehicles, and one way to do that is to encourage consumers to give a preference to those vehicles. I think it is regrettable that this section is being changed at this time, although perhaps energy-efficient vehicles could have been defined with more precision.

MS. SANFORD: I am really concerned as well that the minister has decided to make this change. It seems to me that energy conservation is far too important a concern to be set aside simply because you need more money in this fiscal year. I think it's a serious mistake to make that kind of a change and set aside that whole concept, which is the concept that the minister argued at the time he introduced this variable tax rate on the sale of automobiles. If the minister wants more money — if that is the object — then let people like the MLA for Nanaimo, who likes to drive a very big automobile, pay an even higher sales tax. Let those people who prefer huge automobiles and want to continue utilizing a vehicle of that size pay an even higher percentage of the tax. Then you wouldn't have to do away with the smaller vehicles. I think it is a mistake.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I am a bit hesitant, because up to now I have been talking about 1(c) and I want to go on to one of the other subsections. Perhaps other members want to continue with l(c) for a while.

MR. D'ARCY: I am not going to belabour this point, Mr. Chairman, but I think it is an important change. I would like to question the minister, with all respect. If I heard him

[ Page 2617 ]

correctly, he said that consumers objected to the statute as it was prior to July 7, and I find that argument somewhat specious. I really cannot imagine any consumer or dealer in the province arguing for a tax increase, and universally for all sales of all cars the change we are discussing here results in a tax increase. Of course some consumers would be — if I could use the term — jealous in that they may be paying 6 percent while their neighbour pays 4 or 2, and would argue for an evening out of the tax rather than a differentiation; but surely nobody would be arguing for an increase, in the case of from 2 to 7 percent, of 350 percent. If the minister wanted, because of that, to even things out, he at least could have accommodated those claims.

The other point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is one that I think has been made in second reading. When these tax incentives for the public to buy more efficiently powered motor vehicles were brought in, by and large by the major suppliers of that consumer market in this province were foreign countries; imported cars supplied that market. The Canadian automobile manufacturing industry was not catering to that market. Now we find that the Canadian industry has retooled and modified, and is supplying the fuel-efficient market. Just when they begin to compete in an effective way the minister comes along and removes the tax break. While I realize that automobile manufacturing is not a major factor in the B.C. economy it certainly is important to our nation as a whole, and sometimes we have to think of our nation as a whole. I would like the minister to make some further comments on these points, because what we are really talking about is a straight across-the-board tax increase. There is no way to disguise it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Since budget day I have received virtually no comment, negative or positive, with respect to returning to the single tax rate for automobiles, whereas at the time we went to the variable rate — which members will recall was lower in the initial instance — I received a great deal of negative comment. I'm sure members will have looked at the Social Service Tax Act prior to budget day. I have in front of me the copy which was consolidated, for convenience, as of October 15 last. When you take a very basic idea, such as small automobiles at X-rate, medium at Y-rate and larger at Z-rate, it seems very straightforward — until you start identifying it in terms that can be interpreted by those who would administer the statute and those who must deal with the rate of tax.

The member for Alberni spoke about Transport Canada. Of course, he would know that we had to relate it — I'm speaking of section 2 of the Social Services Tax Act before it is to be amended by this section — to a fuel consumption rating of 8.5 litres, or less, per 100 kilometres: 6 percent between 8.5 litres per 100 kilometres, but less than 11.3 litres per 100 kilometres, or 8 percent. As I say, there was significant negative comment, and it continued — not at the same volume, but it did continue on and off — with respect to the complication and with respect to people in the market for a new car.

It should also be observed that this never dealt with used vehicles because the Transport Canada rating would be extremely difficult to apply; it dealt with new vehicles. We have returned to the general sales tax rate. I'm not suggesting to the committee that I foresee a change in that general sales tax rate, but as with all other goods, durables or whatever, purchased under this social service tax, that rate will rise and fall as circumstances dictate. Therefore I describe it a well-intentioned effort, but one which caused considerable complications. It is for that reason that we're returning to the across-the-board rate.

[3:15]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, until now we have been talking about the variable rate with respect to automobiles. I'll concede the minister's argument to the effect that there were complaints about the variable rate and that there have been none at all about the average increase by doing away with the lower rates. I've had no complaints about the variable rate — very few, at least — and certainly none about the increase; nevertheless, I am dedicated to the idea of the preservation of energy and of encouraging people. I haven't had any complaints about the 25 increase in tobacco tax either. It's a way of raising revenue, and of course that's one of the things the minister has in mind. However, I am opposed to this particular part of section 1. If anything, I would go the way of the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford): that is, to increase the difference until people start realizing that they should be paying for using more energy.

A couple of places in this section refer to the increase in the rate from 6 to 7 percent. Again the minister indicated that there are studies to support this, and that it would not have a bad effect on the economy. I recall that in 1978, when the government reduced the sales tax by a couple of points with a considerable amount of assistance from the federal government, it was done then as a way of improving our economic performance as a nation, province by province. Certainly we need some improvement right now. I wonder what arguments were used to persuade the minister — with our economic performance being what it is right now; on the upgrade — that this was the time to introduce a general increase in the rate of the sales tax.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to that portion of the section before us which deals with the general tax rate, I think I indicated at the conclusion of second reading that, faced with a projected deficit in the neighbourhood of $1.6 billion — a little less if we're lucky — I had to access a variety of revenue sources without hitting any particular aspect of the public in such a way as to cause very real difficulties. Therefore I believe that at the conclusion of second reading, if not in a question or in dealing with the news media, I indicated — and I can indicate now, Mr. Chairman, quite frankly — that for a while I had considered an increase from 6 to 8 percent. But the impact that would have had on the provincial economy would, I think, have been quite serious. There were, therefore, two or three options to me. I believe I'm not straying from the section, since we're speaking about the general rate increase.

One of the options, quite clearly, would have been to significantly reduce, if not almost altogether eliminate, the very extensive list of exemptions from the sales tax in British Columbia. I was loath to do that, extremely reluctant to do that, in terms of the agricultural industry and the fishing industry, in terms of many essentials which individuals purchase, and these essentials are well stated in all the documentation issued by the consumer tax branch. Recognizing the value of one sales tax percentage point, I reluctantly concluded that I wanted to — indeed I had to — increase the rate from 6 to 7 percent. I don't make the comment lightly, Mr. Chairman, but a number of people in the days following the

[ Page 2618 ]

budget indicated that they somehow had expected an increase; and a number of them had expected an increase from 6 to 8 percent. As I said, that was carefully considered and rejected.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I suppose, the opposition is opposed to the part of this section dealing with the abandoning of the variable rate for automobiles. We are opposed to a general increase in the sales tax, particularly at this time. We were convinced by the arguments used by this minister's predecessor in 1978, when he argued successfully that it was necessary, from the point of view of economic performance, to reduce the sales tax. We agreed with that argument at that time, and we feel that would be the right approach to take today. For those reasons, we're going to vote against this section.

Section 1 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS 8

On section 2.

MR. STUPICH: Once again, this section deals at least in part with an increase in the rate of tax. Our arguments are the same as they were on Section 1 with respect to an increase in taxes at this time, so we'll vote against section 2 as well.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 6

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[3:30]

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. STUPICH: The minister may have commented to some extent on this in second reading more than I heard — I don't know. This is a departure. We are now moving into a new area — two new areas, actually: a charge on meals is new in the last 12 or 15 years at least. Again, I wonder what reports or studies were done to persuade the minister that imposing a sales tax on restaurant meals and also on long-distance telephone calls was the right way to go at this time. What rationale is there for this, apart from raising money?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think I heard the member for Nanaimo say, just as he took his seat: "apart from raising money." Well, that certainly was fundamental to the consideration. I hope the member will hear me out, as he nearly always does — always does, I should say.

Prepared meals and long-distance telephone calls are now taxed in most other provinces and in many states. In fact, I'm informed that prepared meals are taxed in all provinces except Alberta and Saskatchewn, and long-distance telephone calls are taxed in all provinces except Alberta. I will probably be ruled out of order by the Chair, but from what I hear and read it may not be too long before some tax changes will occur in the province next door.

As I indicated in the previous section, in considering the serious effect that increasing the sales tax general rate from 6 percent to 8 percent might have, and therefore deciding on 7 percent, I saw these as two other opportunities for revenue, still giving the consumer an element of choice. I appreciate that in some areas the long-distance telephone call is a necessity, but there is an option open to individuals in many instances. I recognize that it is a business expense — the long-distance telephone must be used — and of course it is again worth noting that this tax exists in most other jurisdictions in North America, and certainly in Europe, insofar as I am informed.

The entry level for the tax on prepared meals has been discussed at length. That is not to say that it should not be discussed again in this Section in committee. In introducing the level I was very cognizant of the fact that there are those individuals who must, of necessity, for family, business or work reasons, or whatever, eat meals other than at home. That's why the decision was made with respect to $7. The lunch which I had today, which is typical of lunches which most people would eat, was well under that level and therefore not taxable.

MR. MACDONALD: I have to eat twice at night now.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That member is definitely not in his seat. I falsely accused the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) of not being in his seat earlier, but I know that member is not in his seat.

[ Page 2619 ]

To the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), through you, Mr. Speaker, I examined the limited options open to me, again bearing in mind the need for significant exemptions in medications and a variety of personal and tangible property, in terms of food products which we purchase for preparation and consumption at home, and that is why I accessed these two, which had been exempt for quite some time.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the $7 figure, the minister anticipated me to some extent, although I wonder again if Ontario went all the way. Did they?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes.

MR. STUPICH: I wonder if the minister considered that. He did say that some people are obliged to eat lunches away from home, and he was trying to provide for those by setting the figure at $7. I have to ask again.... I did this in second reading but I don't think the minister really commented on it, He did with respect to the first section.

The exemptions, I believe, are there to reduce the regressivity of the tax — if that is the proper word. I wonder whether it's the best direction to go or whether it would be better to be eliminating more exemptions. What I'm wondering is whether any study has been done of this. How effective is this means of reducing the regressivity, and would it be better to get rid of more exemptions and establish some credit system for the people? The minister said he ate a lunch for less than $7. He can well afford to pay the sales tax on whatever he paid for his lunch, but there are people out there who are eating meals costing more than $7, in certain circumstances, who find it difficult to pay for that meal. I question this whole way of handling it. Why didn't we go all the way if we're going to go at all, and why $7 in particular? Did the minister have any input from the Ministry of Tourism as to what effect it might have to introduce it right when the tourist season was just getting rolling on July 7?

HON MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, if I can stay within the limits of the section, no, I did not consult with the Ministry of Tourism. Indeed, I think our parliamentary practice prevents that from occurring. Nor could I consult with the Restaurant Association in the province; nor could I consult with anyone else with respect to a tax measure. I think there would have been quite appropriate howls for my resignation, more so than usual, if I had consulted with anyone. As the member well knows, Mr. Chairman, having served in this House for a good number of years, I could not allude in any way to a tax on restaurant meals, even if we had not yet decided on the level. That would have signalled a future tax move, and so that option was not open to me. There are times when I wish it were, and I think there are others in the country who feel that way. That kind of consultation would be of assistance in some instances, but tradition or practice, call it what one will, precludes that.

The member speaks with respect to the restaurant meals. Yes, I can afford to pay tax on a lunch. It happens that I eat a very light lunch, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman. But we wanted to avoid virtually all breakfasts, most lunches and all take-out meals, and we certainly wanted to avoid the modest evening meal which some people on shiftwork or in the course of travelling would have to consume away from their own homes. I think the $7 level, while it was the subject of considerable criticism initially, is becoming accepted. I've seen a few "Curtis Specials" at $6.99, and I understand....

MR. SKELLY: Ptomaine specials.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Ptomaine specials! Surely the member for Alberni doesn't accuse the restaurant industry of serving poor food in this province? I'm not aware of it.

MR. MACDONALD: They're very good. I had two of them the other night.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, seriously, I would commend to the member for Nanaimo and to others, as I have done previously, an examination of the flat tax from zero, 10 cents or 50 cents, whatever it may be. Ontario did move to that last year, and I think that the problems have been quite significant. Most places where one eats away from one's home which charge $7 or more are already registered with the consumer taxation branch for the dispensing of alcoholic beverages. As they are already registered, it was not a great difficulty for them. One can imagine the confusion that could have been caused with the introduction of a tax to the thousands of outlets which are not registered with the consumer taxation branch — the corner cafe, whatever it may be, which does not even dispense beer or wine. I don't think it's necessary, in terms of revenue, and I trust that events will prove me correct, to have a tax levied when one goes to a coffee shop and has a cup of coffee, or when one goes to a comer cafe and has a grilled cheese sandwich. I earnestly hope we don't come to that point in terms of the need for revenue. The $7 was very carefully considered. The Restaurant Association was initially vehemently opposed, but officials in the ministry and I have had meetings with the Restaurant Association in the interval, and I believe that there is a gradual understanding of the fairness of that $7 level.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, people do get accustomed to paying almost any tax, I suppose, and the heat cools off. It's another tax increase which was imposed at the wrong time in our economy. It was imposed near the beginning of our tourist season. Apart from that, the whole thing is based on the premise that the minister forecast our deficit for this fiscal period will be $1.6 billion. I don't accept that premise for a start, and I'm opposed to a tax increase at this time. I'm against this section.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm not going to recanvass material covered by the member for Nanaimo on section 4, but what has not been discussed, certainly not at any length, regarding this particular tax is the effect on the employees in the restaurant business, who are largely non-unionized and depend for a great proportion of their income on tips and gratuities. The experience of a great many employees whom I have talked to within the restaurant industry has been that a tremendous number of restaurant consumers, because times are tight and people are working their personal budgets with a pretty sharp pencil, simply take it out of what normally would have been a tip or gratuity. Therefore this tax directly reduces the disposable income of employees within the industry, apart from whether or not it has had a depressing effect on restaurant sales, particularly sales of food in excess of $7. That is the question which I suppose we can all have our own subjective arguments for. In my view it has had a depressing effect on

[ Page 2620 ]

the sales of restaurant meals in excess of $7. As we have commented before in second reading — I won't go over it again — one of our fastest-growing industries in terms of employment in this province has been or was, before the economic downturn, the restaurant industry. I would like to have the minister's comments on that.

For the moment I am simply going to move an amendment that section 4 be amended to delete subsection (a), which is the section referring to imposing a tax on the restaurant industry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will advise on the amendment in a moment if the member will just go ahead, please.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, quite clearly, in my view, a restaurant tax at this time will have a depressing effect on economic recovery in British Columbia. It will also discourage the tourist industry as we approach Expo 86. I think the public of British Columbia appreciate that the ministry that the minister is responsible for has a major investment in terms of public funds. Certainly substantial borrowings have been authorized through his ministry for that purpose. As members of this assembly — or, to be precise, as part of this committee — we certainly do not want to do anything which is going to have any restricting effect on the restaurant industry and the tourist industry in general. We do not want to impede in any way this province's ability to generate much economic activity, much velocity out there with the money supply within the province of British Columbia.

Certainly I speak in favour of the amendment. I hope the minister will consider it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has been advised that inasmuch as the amendment affects Crown revenues, by virtue of that alone, it is out of order. There will be no more discussion on the amendment.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect, I must challenge your ruling on whether or not the amendment is in order.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

[3:45]

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

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 8

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

The House in committee on Bill 15; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I want to be on record as opposing this section. We're dealing here with a very competitive industry. Many people who go into the restaurant industry go in with very few resources. It's one of those types of business which fail in large numbers in the province of B.C., according to its own association and its representative, Don Bellamy.

Also, it's one of the industries that's heavily reliant on the tourist industry and must be extremely competitive when we're talking about a difference in value between the Canadian and U.S. dollars of 19 cents. By imposing a tax on meals of 7 percent, we're reducing the difference in price between American and Canadian meals. Americans are already competitive, even when their dollar is worth more. What we should be doing is improving the ability of the restaurant trade to compete for tourist dollars. To add taxes upon taxes, as this government is doing, eliminates the competitive edge which would keep Canadians travelling in Canada and which would attract Americans to this country. Again, it takes away tourist dollars.

It also takes away disposable consumer dollars — job creating dollars — from small communities and transfers those dollars down to Victoria, where they are obviously less efficiently spent.

The minister has indicated in previous sections of the bill that studies had been done to determine the tax impacts of the sales tax at various rates and on various commodities. He indicated that for some reason he couldn't consult with the Ministry of Tourism. I don't think that's really an argument. In previous budget papers, the ministry indicated what the various tax expenditures were involved in social services tax exemptions. They indicated how much money the government had forgone by not levying social services taxes against various retail items. The public is aware, the ministry is aware, and the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is obviously aware of what those expenditures involve. I am sure that it would not be considered a breach of the minister's responsibility for secrecy to discuss with various ministers what the options are for raising provincial revenues. However, it would be difficult to discuss it in specific instances where the minister is preparing a budget. Surely the Ministry of Finance, with its capability to do these kinds of studies, could have consulted with the Ministry of Tourism to find out what the detailed impact would be of taxing restaurant meals, especially on the tourist industry, and the competitiveness of that industry between ourselves and the United States.

Again, I think it's unfortunate that this tax is being imposed in this way, and I certainly intend to vote against it.

MR. DAVIS: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

[ Page 2621 ]

Leave granted.

MR. DAVIS: In the gallery this afternoon we have a prominent citizen, Mr. David Craig, of North Vancouver, who is a former trustee and highly valued adviser. I would like the House to make him welcome.

[4:00]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I would like to go a little further than did the hon. member on this question of advice. The minister said that it's a matter of precedent and practice, I believe, that he can't go outside of his ministry for advice. He can't even talk to his colleague the Minister of Tourism. I would like to suggest to the minister that he re-examine this whole question.

It would seem to me that there must be quite a number of people involved in the preparation of the budget, certainly in the final stages, and in the printing of the legislation. There must have been quite a number of people who knew, prior to July 7, that there was going to be an increase in the sales tax. In the 112-year history of the province, I've never known of one example of anyone being accused of breaking a trust with respect to a budget measure. It may have happened and I've forgotten about it.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm talking about the province of British Columbia right now.

It would seem to me that if the minister really believes that he could do a greater service to the public and the community by discussing in advance, with someone other than the people immediately involved with it, then he should feel that he can do that by swearing the appropriate people to secrecy. He can also go too far in that direction, I would think. I believe that one of the problems with the infamous 1981 MacEachen budget was that most of the advice came from outsiders rather than insiders, so they don't always know better. I quite firmly believe that there are times when even the Minister of Finance, with respect to budgetary measures, should abandon this old concept that to discuss the matter with outsiders is not the proper thing to do. If he believes it's in the interests of the people of the community, and if he can serve the people better as Minister of Finance by so doing, then I think he should re-examine his position in that respect and act accordingly.

I'm opposed to section 4, of course, because it is an increase in tax and it's the wrong time for it.

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 9

An hon. member requested that leave he asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this is the section that deals with the regulations. I have a question for the minister as to whether or not he is proposing changes in the method of collection of tax. This question is prompted by a letter which I received, as did the minister, I believe. It used to be that people who had sales under a certain amount were only required to submit the tax every three months, I believe it was. Now, apparently, this has been changed and they are requested to send this in every month. I'm wondering whether or not this is a new regulation that has been written in connection with the particular piece of legislation and, if so, what the thinking behind this is. It does create a lot of extra paperwork for the same fee. I think they get $10 every time they submit. They are being required to do this.... I'm not sure that I have this right. Perhaps they are going to be changed from one month to every three months, because I know they're going to get much less return for doing the same amount of work. I don't have the piece of paper in front of me right now, but I think the minister is now familiar with this and perhaps he could just fill us in as to what it is that he is proposing to do, and what the thinking behind it is.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the regulations referred to in section 6 are simply those relative to the tax changes. What the member has raised is largely administrative, and has been undertaken.... We want to make it as easy as we can for those who remit the tax, because from the government's point of view we are also involved in a fair amount of paperwork as well. I believe we've had correspondence on the instance to which she refers, but I would be happy to deal with her in that regard at any time convenient to her.

MRS. WALLACE: I take it that the minister is saying that this is not covered by regulation and that it is an administrative thing. What is the authority, then, if it's not covered by regulation?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, my point was that it is not in this regulation.

MRS. WALLACE: So there's been no change.

HON. MR. CURTIS: This regulation deals only with the regulations necessary with respect to the changes that apply in this bill. I don't think I can discuss all sales tax regulations with the member, as much as I would like to, when we just have regulations which deal with this particular bill.

Section 6 approved.

[ Page 2622 ]

On section 7.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I did raise this earlier with the minister, and I don't think he commented on it. I question again why an increase in sales tax has to be retroactive. I'm opposed to retroactive legislation as a general principle, and to retroactive tax increases in particular. I note in the news, in the last 24 hours or so, that people in Israel are expecting the price of almost everything that they buy to go up substantially in the next short while, and it has started a spending spree in that state. It would seem to me that if the implementation of this particular legislation had been postponed — as was done, may I remind you, Mr. Speaker, some 35 years ago, when the legislation was first introduced in March, and not put into effect until July 1 - there would have been a spending spree in anticipation of it. I think if there's anything we need in the community right now it's something to building consumer confidence. If people did go out and spend a lot of money in anticipation that the rate of sales tax was going to increase, I think there wouldn't be the fall-off immediately afterwards, and it could do nothing but good for the economy.

If the minister commented on the impossibility of telegraphing his punch with respect to this particular tax increase, I missed it, and I apologize.

[4:15]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think I did deal with this, but if not I'll try to recap briefly. The tax holiday which comes to mind most readily is with respect to automobiles in Ontario. I have received mixed messages on it. Yes, it did accelerate the sale of automobiles, but then at the end of the holiday they fell off quite badly. I'm sorry I don't have statistics with respect to that.

I am aware of what has occurred in the State of Israel in the last couple of days, but I think that the telegraphing of the punch is ultimately disruptive.

MR. STUPICH: That's an extreme situation, though.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is an extreme situation, I admit.

Insofar as this Legislature is concerned this tax is now retroactive, but the bill was introduced on budget day, and said: "As of tonight the tax rates are changed. These items are taxable, and so on." It works both ways, when a tax is reduced or increased.

If members on both sides permit, I would enjoy discussing during my estimates the whole question of consultation and the triggering of tax dates. I would be more comfortable discussing it in estimates than in this particular section. I hear one or two of my colleagues behind me saying aye.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think they're saying aye with respect to something quite different.

But I think it's not whether the members would allow that but whether the Chairman will allow it when we get to the minister's estimates. Let's try it at that time and see how we get along.

Section 7 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 7

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 15, Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1983, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix. I

On the amendment.

MR. HANSON: I propose an amendment to the minister's amendment, to strike out the words, "includes layoff, " and substitute: " means to dismiss from employment with just cause."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Since the subamendment is beyond the scope of the amendment, the Chair has to rule it out of order.

MR. HANSON: That is your ruling, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct.

[ Page 2623 ]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, may I ask you what the grounds are for ruling it out of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just said what it was. It is beyond the scope of the amendment as presented by the minister, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Does that mean that if this amendment as proposed by the minister is accepted it is then open to amendment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no problem with a member's moving a subamendment. It is just that in this particular case the subamendment goes beyond the scope of the amendment as presented by the minister. If the hon. member would like to present a subamendment in a different fashion, the Chair will consider that.

MS. SANFORD: I fail to understand the reasoning that you have advanced. I have to admit that I don't understand your reluctance to accept this, because it appears to me that it clarifies the amendment moved by the minister rather than going beyond the scope of that amendment. I cannot accept your decision, and I challenge it.

[4:30]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 7

MR. REE: On a point of order, I believe the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) did not stand for the division either way, and he's on the division list.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. Hearing the reading of the list, I note that Mr. Clerk indicates that the second member for Victoria voted nay. Is that correct?

MR. BLENCOE: That's correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member affirms that. His vote will be recorded as voting against sustaining the Chair.

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. HANSON: I have a subamendment to section 1, the definition section, adding the following definition: "'Lay off' is a cessation of employment as a result of a reduction of the amount of work required to be done by the employer." That is the language out of the existing collective agreement, and I so move.

Mr. Chairman, I need a clarification. At the moment we have the amendments moved by the minister. Is my subamendment not in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not until after the minister's amendment has been passed.

MR. HANSON: The minister has moved an amendment to add the following definition: that "'terminate' includes 'lay off.' " Mr. Chairman, we oppose that. We oppose it because public sector workers are being singled out for treatment that is not found, contrary to their arguments, in the private sector. There are layoffs in the private sector; there are terminations in the private sector.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious piece of business. The future of many public servants in this area and across this province is in jeopardy. I really think it would be incumbent upon the government members to listen clearly to what this first member for Victoria has to say, and perhaps you could ask the government members to stop interjecting and let him make his case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is not a point of order, but the point is well taken.

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, if the second member for Victoria can make those points of order and get them on the record, we could also say that he was sleeping through the last vote and that is why he didn't stand up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That also is not a point of order, hon. member. This House will come to order.

MR. HANSON: Within the collective agreements that are affected by this legislation, in all instances there are layoff and recall clauses. I would like to read to you, to convince the minister of the folly of his amendment, article 13.01 — "Layoff and recall" — of the current BCGEU agreement: "Layoff. In the event of layoff resulting from a decrease in the amount of work to be done, the following shall apply: (1) auxiliary employees...." For your information, Mr. Chairman, an auxiliary employee is one who does not occupy an established position in government; in other words, they are the as-and-when type of employees but do have their seniority counted as a credit to their employment. Many auxiliary employees can have 10 or 15 years' service, but have never been successful in getting a regular position or in applying for one or whatever. The point I'm trying to make to the minister is that layoff is a well-understood term in industrial relations which relates to the seasonal fluctuations through as-and-when conditions that all employers experience; in other words, from time to time the work requirement is greater. Therefore layoff and recall occur in the public sector as they do in the private sector.

[ Page 2624 ]

In the public sector, this government is singling out the people who are working in schedule 1 and also at the schedule in the back of this act, which covers 250,000 families in this province. To separate them from the classification of having layoff protection according to seniority.... A layoff is a termination. That is unjust, Mr. Chairman. I testify to you that the amendments and various regulations that have been appearing, both in this House, and in the corridors and in press gallery meetings, are a sham. They try to confuse and obfuscate, try to separate public sector employment from private sector employment. The notion that is attempted to be perpetrated on the public by the government is that somehow private sector workers are not enjoying the same kind of protection and rights that public sector workers are. That is false.

[4:45]

Mr. Chairman, as I have pointed out in earlier discussions and I'm not going to get into anything that would be appropriate under second reading — the specifics of layoff and recall and the language proposed here, which makes a layoff notice a termination notice.... Public sector employees, even within the bargaining unit, which is one group directly under the employ of the provincial government.... They are only one of 20 different agencies of government affected by this bill. There is some protection in the bargaining unit for those with over three years' service. However, they can be fired with just cause. If they are not doing their job properly, and it's properly documented, they can be terminated. If they are unhappy, they can then proceed....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the member for Victoria is really making his case on the wrong section of this legislation. If he wants to discuss the question of termination of employees, he should be discussing the issue on section 2, not in the interpretation section. Interpretation just defines what the act essentially does.

It strikes me that he is attempting to make a case to frustrate our ability to get the legislation through the House by attempting to harass and delay each and every section of the act. The case that he is making now is precisely out of order under this particular section.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I don't think the minister's left hand knows what his right hand is doing. He's brought in an amendment which reads....

He's going to add a definition that makes "terminate" mean "lay off." I don't know what date he brought that in — it was a couple of days ago — but I have in my hand some draft Public Sector Restraint Act regulations with tomorrow's date. Do you know what he talks about here in the preamble? He talks about layoff and recall rights. Then he gets over into the general part and talks about implementation of terminations. He talks about terminations or layoffs. If he is dealing with interpretation and telling us that a termination means a layoff, then why is he referring to both termination or layoffs when he discusses the problem in regulations? He goes on to compensation. It's interesting....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, compensation really has nothing to do with this particular section of the act. She apparently wants to read the compensation package and the regulations that were brought down this afternoon. Essentially, in the amendment to section 1, which is the interpretation section of the act, the government is saying that we should have the flexibility to use either: termination or layoff. We're not attempting to suggest that one means the other, and the other means the other. We're just saying that that flexibility is what we require, and that's why the word "layoff" was added to the interpretation section. It doesn't mean anything more than that. I think all they have to do is look at a dictionary to come to an interpretation of what "terminate" really means. You can also look at a dictionary and come to a conclusion about what "lay off" means. I don't think it's fuzzy, ambiguous or an attempt to deceive or mislead. It's a very simple, clear-cut amendment that's been put to the interpretation section, section 1. If you want to discuss all the many other issues and sections in this bill — there are ten sections.... If you want to discuss the appropriate section you will have an opportunity to do so. Don't attempt to discuss something under a section that's out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair should point out that the minister rose on a point of order, but what in fact the minister did was to respond to the questions that were being put by the hon. member. We are speaking to Section 1 dealing with definitions within the bill, and with the amendment. I think the Chair appreciates what the member is saying, but could the member speak directly to this particular definition.

MRS. WALLACE: The definition we're talking about is: "terminate' includes lay off." I am suggesting that if "terminate" includes " lay off," then we do not need to talk about terminations or layoffs, or to differentiate between them as the minister has done in his regulations. If terminate means lay off, then terminate means lay off, you can't have it both ways. You can't have terminate and lay off the same thing, and then differentiate between them and how you're going to treat them when you come to drafting regulations. I think the minister should reconsider this particular amendment if he's going to have the kind of regulations that he's proposing. What he is saying here is that terminate and lay off are identical; I'm saying that his other actions do not indicate that he really thinks that. The issues he is raising under other sections of this act are not in line with what he is saying in this amendment. If a termination is a layoff, if they are identical things, then you don't....

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, no, I'm not saying that.

MRS. WALLACE: Then why are you saying it means the same thing?

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're talking about the regulations now.

I

MRS. WALLACE: No, no. I'm talking about this amendment that says, "'terminate' includes lay off," that says "terminate" and "layoff" are synonymous. That's what you're saying in this amendment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, no.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, if you're not saying that, then my understanding of the English language is quite different. I think there are going to be a great many problems before the

[ Page 2625 ]

courts in interpreting whether or not this does mean that a layoff and a termination are the same thing. Certainly that's what the intent of it appears to be. If a termination includes a layoff, then when you're laid off you are terminated. Is that correct or isn't it? Is that what this is saying? I'd like the minister to tell us whether he really means that if you are laid off you're terminated, Is that the same thing, Mr. Minister, or are they different things?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, they're different things.

MRS. WALLACE: How? If you're saying that termination includes layoff....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I think the member just has to read that sentence very carefully — not carefully, really, but with a little bit of thought. There are only three words. It doesn't say "termination means layoff." It doesn't say "termination is the same as layoff." It says "'terminate' includes lay off." Essentially it means that terminations can be applicable. It gives the government the flexibility of using layoff too. Would you prefer that the government used only the word "terminate," or do you want us to have the flexibility of using them both, either the flexibility of using termination, or the flexibility of using layoff? It gives the government some flexibility. That's all it does. That's what we're saying. We don't say "'terminate' means lay off," we say "'terminate' includes lay off." Maybe you had better call in a lawyer to give you some advice.

MS. SANFORD: The minister is telling us that he has been getting such flak since the introduction of this bill that we now have a cosmetic amendment to say that termination can also include layoff. But it doesn't change anything, Mr. Chairman, because this government will go right ahead and terminate as they have been doing all along. They will continue to do exactly as they see fit under this....

MR. KEMPF: Order.

MS. SANFORD: What do you mean, "order"?

MR. KEMPF: I mean you're not speaking to the amendment.

MS. SANFORD: Of course I'm speaking to the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, please address the Chair. The scope of this debate, hon. members, is very limited, as you will appreciate. It is limited really to four words and what they mean. While there certainly is room, and some examples can be brought forward, it will be difficult for members to speak specifically to this very limited item.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I'm saying that this is a cosmetic addition to a bill which is still completely unacceptable. It will allow the government, even with this "includes lay off" provision, to terminate based on a philosophy, based on idealism, based on a right-wing extremism which wants to eliminate....

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: This is exactly what it's doing, Mr. Chairman. They have introduced this phrase "includes lay off" in the vain hope that it's going to make termination more palatable, more acceptable to the general public. They don't intend to make any changes. They have already gone ahead with these terminations, and now at this late date they bring in this amendment to try to convince the public that they're doing something that is logical and acceptable, the usual kind of approach in labour-management relations. That's what they are trying to do under this amendment, but the terminations have already taken place. So this layoff that they're adding here is simply cosmetic. They are trying to convince the public that they are close to the private sector in terms of labour-management negotiations and labour-management relations. That's what they are trying to do, but they will continue to fire at will, as they have done for these past months. There is nothing here to make them consider just cause at all. They can still terminate in the same way as before. It is a cosmetic addition, and that is all it is, Mr. Chairman.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, section 1 is a very important section and defines forever and a day how this bill applies and whom it applies to. You mentioned three words. Those are very important words, because they outline the history of the development of how the government got into the legal jam that it's in, and I want to clarify that.

The word "layoff" has a certain definition in arbitral law. Layoff means a cessation of employment as the result of a reduction in the amount of work required to be done by the employer. It is a provision of the collective agreement. The courts or an arbitration board or the Labour Relations Boards would say, in looking at the terminations, are these layoffs as they may have been noted in the notices. They are not layoffs because they have not followed the provisions of the collective agreement for layoffs. I don't know whether all of the contracts covering all of the different schedules in the act have the same language, but this one says that in the event of layoff resulting from a decrease in the amount of work to be done, the following shall apply. Auxiliary employees have been terminated, but auxiliary employees to be laid off "shall be laid off, in reverse order of seniority, prior to regular employees." That's what the contract says. The second one is: "Regular employees with less than three (3) years' service seniority shall be laid off in reverse order of seniority." The third: "The provisions of this clause may not apply to an employee on completing an apprenticeship program." That is a different status.

Mr. Chairman, I have been very specific about the definition of layoff.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand, hon. member. I was just going to suggest to you that the specific things you have referred to in the last moment or two would be much better under another section of this same bill which will be coming forward. As I said before, the scope of our debate is very limited. It relates to termination including layoff, and if you could confine your remarks to that a little more closely it would be appreciated.

[ Page 2626 ]

[5:00]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the reason I am focusing debate on this particular matter is for precisely the same arguments that you have put forward. Those three words are fundamental, and I am sure that at some point tomes will be written about those three words and their impact on labour jurisprudence in this province. A termination is different from a layoff; a termination has to be for just cause. That is why this bill before us overrides the Labour Code and the Public Service Labour Relations Act. It overrides that protection that all working people under those pieces of legislation are afforded, because the government appears to want to define termination and layoff differently.

A termination follows a certain process of documentation, warnings, escalation in terms of the employee's lack of ability to recognize the counsel that he or she is getting from the employer. Let's just say, for example, it is poor attendance. If an employee is terminated for poor attendance without proper documentation and without the necessary procedures flowing from that, then the arbitration board may find that the employer didn't fulfill his necessary obligations and the person may be reinstated.

The amendment that the minister has introduced is mixing two very important notions of the workplace. One is layoff, which is a reduction of the work to be performed. There are provisions of the collective agreement to take into account the requirements of the employer to meet those conditions. Termination is firing for just cause. A termination must be the ultimate decision by a court or by an arbitration board or by an arbitrator....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, the member persists in talking about the collective agreement, arbitration boards, and attempting to define the collective agreement as it relates to auxiliaries on the layoff and recall provision in the collective agreement. That isn't what this amendment is all about. All this reads is: "'terminate' includes lay off." I guess the only argument that the member could put up if he doesn't like the addition of the words "lay off".....

Maybe he is in favour of strict terminations. What we are saying is that the government requires flexibility to use either termination or layoff, and we are saying that termination includes layoff. That is all we are saying. We are not saying that we are going to look at the provisions of the collective agreement, we are going to go through arbitration cases, judicial review and all those things. All we are saying is that we want to have that flexibility of using the mechanism of layoff.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. We are on an amendment to section 1, an interpretation section, and all debate must be strictly relevant to the amendment before us, which is a simple change in interpretation. I am sure the members are aware of that. As the Chair has mentioned previously, the member might be anticipating debate on a following section. To the amendment as contained on the order paper.

MR. HANSON: There are four words here: "'terminate' includes lay off." Mr. Chairman, "terminate" is a well understood and properly defined term, according to labour law. It can only be done according to just causes of dismissal. The provisions of this act call for overriding the notions of just cause for dismissal in the Labour Code and the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I think by examining the act one can come to the conclusion that the member is arguing a section other than this section, because what constitutes cause for termination is spelled out further on in the act. I don't know why you persist in putting your cause forward on the wrong section of the act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again I have to accept the point of order as explained by the Provincial Secretary, since I do see a further section that does include termination. We are dealing now with an amendment which is solely an interpretation amendment. If we could debate that amendment before us the committee will be well served.

MR. HANSON: This is a fundamental and very vital part of this government's bill. It is crucial that we debate it, and I am focused on the debate. Those four words will go down in arbitration history in this province. People will be writing large volumes about it. I would ask your openness in understanding that we do want to debate this question. Under organized private sector workers there are two key points; collective agreements provide that terminations must be for just cause. What the government is doing is extending the termination to those employees who are laid off because of seasonal fluctuations. Mr. Chairman, layoff is a concept in the collective agreement for seasonal fluctuations of employment — according to seniority. The government, in these four words, wants to have "termination" and "lay off" synonymous. In other words, following this line of reasoning, a person who is laid off is terminated, according to the government, for cause. A layoff is not a termination for cause. A layoff is a reduction of work to be carried out by the employer, with an agreed upon process for reducing the service. "Terminate," according to the Labour Code and all other legal documents, means that the firing or termination is for cause, not a reduction of work to be carried out by the employer.

There are approved procedures to see if justice has been done, and whether the employee is in fact at fault. There is a due process when looking at termination. Layoffs occur on the basis of seniority. There is a specified process provided in the collective agreements. Termination can only be for just cause. Termination and dismissal are the same.

Do you mean that persons working part-time at the liquor store or in the Glendale laundry are going to have a blemish on their personnel records for the rest of their lives because they were laid off, fired or terminated by the provincial government? The assumption by any private sector employer will be that they were fired for cause: because they were poor, delinquent or negligent employees. Those who go to an employer in the private sector and say they've been terminated by the provincial government are going to carry with them a blemish on their personnel record. That is one of the many reasons why we oppose this amendment. The amendment is that "layoff" and "termination" are the same. They are not. Terminations are done for dismissal with just cause. Layoffs are a reduction or cessation of work to be carried out by an employer.

We speak against the amendment. It is fundamental to this bill. The reason the government has introduced it is that they have apparently run into a legal snag where they may be

[ Page 2627 ]

in difficulties, because the so-called layoff notices are contrary to the collective agreements which are in effect. They have to issue them as termination notices, and then, after the passage of the bill, retroactively justify that they had some cause for the termination. They don't have cause.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The member consistently makes reference to the following section, which deals with the termination of employees and cause. I think that would be a more appropriate section for the discussion which he's pursuing at this time. What we're talking about here are four little words: "'terminate' includes lay off." It gives the government the flexibility of either utilizing "layoff" or "termination." We are not going to go into the business of arbitration and termination with just cause, as he does, because that's all in the next section, in other parts of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With the cautions of the minister accepted, would the first member for Victoria proceed and be strictly relevant, please.

MR. LAUK: The point that the first member for Victoria is trying to make is not being completely understood by the minister, and therefore I would suggest it should not be accepted from the minister by the Chair.

The amendment being debated that "terminate" will include "lay off"....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the member wish to participate in debate?

MR. LAUK: No, I'm on the point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're getting into argument now.

MR. LAUK: No, the point is that the remarks made by the member for Victoria are relevant to the amendment that "'terminate' includes lay off." They're contradictory in common and legal usage, so that's why he's questioning it. He's trying to point out to this committee that they're contradictory. You're going to create problems, first of all in an understanding of those employees who are terminated or laid off, or whatever, and you're also going to create problems in judicial interpretation, as these matters are dealt with by the courts, as they invariably will be.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the second member for Vancouver Centre expressed my point very clearly for me. I'm trying to communicate to the minister that termination and layoff are two very well agreed upon and fully defined notions of labour law.

HON. MR. CHABOT: They're separate and distinct.

MR. HANSON: They're not separate and distinct at all, Mr. Minister. He's moving them together so that....

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, argument has been made back and forth as to the relevance or irrelevance of the debate that's going on. Even if the debate as put forward by the first member for Victoria were relevant, and I don't believe it is, the debate is now repetitious, because what I have heard the member just say I've heard three times in the last half hour.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, that point is also well taken, and we must remind ourselves of standing order 43, and the fact that we can offend the rules by being tedious and repetitious. But I'm sure the first member for Victoria can explain his point, and perhaps we can carry on relevant debate.

MR. LAUK: How would the member know that a point has been made more than once?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair must accept an hon. member's submission.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I think it's very important and relevant to the four words before us — "'termination' includes lay off" — that a firing and a layoff are the same. Under the current language of the contracts before the government, signed by the government, at the back of the little books it says: "Article 10: Dismissal, suspension and discipline." That's the language we're referring to. "Burden of proof. In all cases of discipline the burden of just cause shall rest with the employer...."

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, terminations and the provisions of a collective agreement are contained in section 2, not section 1, of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will point out that the hon. member appears to be making an argument for interpretation, so I will accept his argument. But I will also remind the hon. member that the point of order raised by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is also relevant. Once that argument has been made we cannot continue it to the point where it becomes tedious. As the member's argument relates to interpretation, that is acceptable.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I would feel that I could give a more coherent statement and argument if I could get more than one sentence out without an interruption from that side of the House. It is very difficult to argue and debate a case when you have silly interjections coming from the defence over there, who will be sitting in the chair shortly and probably moving closure against us.

[5:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will rule on points of order, and the member will relate his remarks to the section of the amendment before us.

MR. HANSON: We have two elements that are like fire and water. Termination and layoff are two different things. When you're fired you're fired for just cause, and you have an appeal procedure. When you're laid off, the employer doesn't have as much work to be performed, and he lays you off in reverse order of seniority and brings you back according to seniority. I want to read the portion that refers to termination in the existing agreement. It says that the sole burden of proof rests with the employer. It says that when a person is dismissed a minister or deputy minister dismisses, not Joe Bloggs down here above the working level.

[ Page 2628 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the definition, please.

MR. HANSON: "A minister or deputy minister may dismiss" — after they get their recommendation and reasoning up from the supervisory level — "any employee for just cause. Notice of dismissal shall be in writing, and shall set forth the reasons for dismissal." Not that you worked for the government — that's not the reason for termination that we have in Bill 3 — or that you happen to have the misfortune of having the government as your employer. If you drive a bus or work for a municipal police force or fire department....

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the interpretation, please.

MR. HANSON: So that's for dismissal....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member is reading from the master agreement of the B.C. Government Employees' Union, article 10, which deals with dismissal, suspension and discipline. I want to suggest that this particular section of the act doesn't pertain to this particular part of the collective agreement. This kind of disciplinary action — dismissals and suspensions — will continue to be in place, despite the fact that this act will address other terminations. These dismissals really have nothing to do with the terminations we're addressing here. You're attempting to mix water and fire. They don't go together. I don't know how you can make your case, because people can be dismissed, suspended or disciplined for just cause at this time, not for the purpose that is clearly defined in this legislation.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, the minister raises a point of order and is avoiding the very point that the hon. first member for Victoria is trying to point out to him. He's trying to extricate the minister from his own folly. The thing is that the whole of jurisprudence has a certain definition for termination which does not include, and never has included, layoff, because a layoff is technically that. Technically, at law, you are still employed. Termination has been judicially considered and found to be termination, dismissal with or without just cause, and that is usually decided in the court or in arbitration. By making the amendment, he's throwing confusion into the whole jurisprudence around dismissal, termination and layoff, and that's the point that the member for Victoria is trying to make. So it's most relevant that he reads these sections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point, though, made by the second member for Vancouver Centre is very good with respect to the section 1tself, if the member were in debate.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I think he was trying to point out that the amendment itself is probably out of order because the two just don't belong together at all. Termination and layoff are so separate that you can't include one under the other, and my learned colleague was pointing that out.

I am still concerned about what has happened to the employees who have already been terminated now that we have this new proposed definition which includes layoff. Does it mean that those people who have already been terminated will now be rehired in case they might fit in under the government's layoff provisions as included in this particular definition? It seems to me that the government acted, shortly after July 7, and terminated a lot of the employees. Remember, they chased them down in various parts of the province in order to find them so that they could tell them they were terminated, and they had to turn in their keys....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MS. SANFORD: Under this definition, which we question, Mr. Chairman, "terminate" includes "lay off." That has been a second thought on the part of the Provincial Secretary; he didn't think about that initially. He's only thought about it within this last week, because that's when the definition appeared.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not correct.

MS. SANFORD: Well, it didn't appear on the order paper before then. I don't know when the minister thought about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must advise you now that I believe you are offending the rule of anticipation. If the amendment passes and the section as amended passes, then your debate will be most relevant when we discuss section 2, but it would not be relevant under this amendment or this first section dealing with interpretation.

MS. SANFORD: All right. I want to know what his interpretation of the words "lay off" is as included in this interpretation section, because if it means that people will now be "laid off" according to the provisions of the collective agreement, then I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that many of those people who have already been terminated will have to be re-employed. So his interpretation of these words "lay off" — if in fact it's anything more than cosmetic, which I am beginning to think — surely must apply to some of those people who have already been terminated. How many people are going to be rehired so that they can be laid off according to the provisions of the collective agreement? How many people does the minister envision will qualify in the future under the proper layoff provisions rather than under termination? Thirdly, does layoff, according to the minister's definition within this particular section, mean layoff according to the collective agreement that's now in existence? I wonder if the minister would clarify some of those points for us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, before recognizing the minister, I must once again stress that your debate would be most relevant, and is relevant, to another section. You are now discussing application, but what we are discussing under this amendment and this section is interpretation. There is a distinct difference. I don't want to be difficult about this, hon. members, but, really, we must be strictly relevant during debate in committee. I would ask the members, if they have further debate on the amendment before us now to section 1, that they make that debate relevant to Section I and not to other sections that we are not prepared to address at this point.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that before we can vote on this amendment that is proposed by the minister, it must be made clear to us what he interprets the words "lay off" to mean. I asked some very specific questions about this. Under this section, which is definitions, I

[ Page 2629 ]

want to know what his definition is. Does layoff mean layoff according to the collective agreement that's now in existence? Does he have some other interpretation of layoff? How many people does he anticipate will fall under the layoff category rather than the termination category? Four specific questions. The other....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Wrong section.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, come on. We have to know what the minister means by layoff before we can be expected to vote on it. I think that that's a very simple request that the minister should be able to comply with. What does he mean by layoff? Is it layoff as is currently laid out in the master agreement which is still in effect? I can ask that again if the minister didn't hear. Is that what the minister means by layoff?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Chairman, on the question of layoff and termination, I think for the benefit of the people over there, who probably haven't read the Employment Standards Act, there is an interpretation of "terminate." "'Terminate' includes (a) layoff of an employee from employment, other than temporary layoff, or (b) alteration of a condition of employment that the board declares to be a termination of an employee's employment, but does not include the discharge of an employee for just cause." So that's your definition of layoff.

MS. SANFORD: The minister failed to indicate to us whether or not he would follow the provisions of the collective agreement when he's laying off under this new section that he's introducing here. I think the only thing that we can assume from his answer is that he has no intention of paying any attention whatsoever to what has been negotiated and is currently in effect under the master agreement with the BCGEU.

The next question, Mr. Chairman. How many people does the minister anticipate — because they have announced that they're going to lay off or terminate X number of people — would fall under the category of layoff as defined in the Employment Standards Act, not in the master agreement?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Wrong section.

MS. SANFORD: No, it is not. I want to know what his definition of layoff is. Is it cosmetic, or do they actually intend to follow some sort of layoff provisions even though they're not the provisions contained in the collective agreement? How many people, under this definition of layoff.... The minister has read to us that it's the definition of layoff included in the Employment Standards Act. How many of the people the government intends to terminate, lay off, fire, get rid of or do away with will fit under this definition of layoff?

HON. MR. CHABOT: My response to that is, read section 2 of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again I have to stress, hon. members, that the minister's point is well taken; we are anticipating a future section. We are on the interpretation section now.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the minister refers me to section 2, but there are no numbers in section 2 that tell me how many he intends to lay off under this provision that's given there.

HON. MR. CHABOT: My response to that is that's the appropriate section to ask that particular question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. The minister would not be allowed to reply to a question that would be more specifically and better addressed under section 2.

MS. SANFORD: We have seen terminations take place. I am wondering whether or not any of those people who have already been terminated would qualify under the new layoff definition. Are they all to expect that they are terminated forever or that they might be rehired so that they could be laid off under the minister's definition of this term "layoff"? Or are those people not at all to be considered under this new definition? As I say, we have seen it only in the last week, and it was certainly not part of the minister's thinking when he initially introduced this bill, or I would assume he would have included it at that time. Could we have the minister answer that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, those questions are more appropriately answered under section 2 rather than under section 1, the interpretation section of the bill. It's nonsense. We can't have the full debate on this bill under the interpretation section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That point of order is extremely well taken....

MS. SANFORD: We're just trying to find out the meaning of layoff. What do you mean by it?

[5:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair notes that subsequent sections of this bill do include the word "terminate." They will now, once the amendment is passed, include the words "lay off." Therefore debate regarding the application of these interpretations will be most appropriate not in this amendment but in subsequent sections and subsequent amendments, and any further discussion with respect to application would be offending the rule of anticipation. To the amendment, please.

MR. HANSON: Speaking specifically to the interpretation of the four words "'terminate' includes lay off," I would like to separate those notions for you. The problem we have before us is that from now on 250,000 families in this province that are subject to layoff at B.C. Hydro or the provincial government or....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Wrong section.

MR. HANSON: Let me finish my line of thinking and you'll get the....

Mr. Chairman, the public employees laid off will be terminated. A termination in the perception of everyone in the community and every future employer will be for just cause. Now let me tell you what just cause means. The classic definition of just cause as set out in Regina v. Arthurs, 1967,

[ Page 2630 ]

62 DLR, second edition, 342, Ontario Court of Appeal, states the following....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are now anticipating debate. We are in an interpretation section. The Chair has ruled on this many times and the Chair has heard many arguments which are now becoming tedious and repetitious. I must ask all hon. members to be specific to the amendment before the committee, which is simply an interpretation amendment, not an application amendment.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, this is not simply an interpretation amendment. This is fundamental of the application of this bill in this....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Application is covered under subsequent sections. Please don't argue with the Chair.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, again with all due respect, when an amendment is added to the interpretation section, and we are unable to put forward our views on the merit or demerit of that particular amendment, then we are remiss in our duties. I argue that to terminate means the following, according to arbitral law: if an employee has been guilty — this termination applies to layoff; a laid-off employee — of serious misconduct.... Imagine getting a layoff notice, and this is what you're charged with. If an employee has been guilty of....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member is trying to give us a definition of cause for termination. Section 2(l) gives the definition of cause for termination under this legislation. It shouldn't be debated under the interpretation section, section 1. Also, I've given an interpretation of "'terminate' includes lay off."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again, the Chair must remind all hon. members that debate now is becoming quite repetitious, and we are really offending the anticipation rule. We must speak strictly to the amendment. I really think that the Chair has offered an awful lot of latitude. Unless the member can advance new arguments, I will call the question on the amendment. Can the member advance new arguments with respect to and strictly relevant to this amendment?

MR. HANSON: Terminate does not mean layoff; it does not include layoff. Termination means that an employee has been guilty of serious misconduct, habitual neglect of duty, incompetence or conduct incompatible with duties.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order. You're straying now.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm not going to raise the point of order again, I don't think, Mr. Chairman — I would hope I wouldn't have to. But now the member, again, is continuing to give us what cause for termination or dismissal or discipline, or something like that.... He is giving us the interpretation which he sees in the collective agreement, or elsewhere. This legislation in the next section talks about cause for termination, and if he wants to put his own argument forward as to the reason why section 2 is inappropriate, I'm prepared to listen. But I can't see any point in listening under the interpretation section of this act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, that point of order is well taken. The committee must be advised that we have really been allowed an awful lot of latitude with respect to this very fine definition of an interpretation section and an amendment to that interpretation section. Further, the arguments that the member is now advancing would be far more appropriate during debate on a section that is not yet before us. With that said, I can't allow much more but to ask the first member for Victoria to summarize his concern.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the amendment put forward by the minister appears to be ill-conceived, poorly drafted, contradictory and probably out of order. Because when you have one item that negates the other in the same definition we're pointing out to the minister that it doesn't hold up through any logical argument or rational approach. You can't have terminate and layoff in the same definition. They are not the same.

What I'm saying is that termination, if it's applied to layoff, will mean that a person who is laid off will be encumbered the rest of their career with a mark on their personnel file that they have been fired for cause, because of serious misconduct, habitual neglect of duty, incompetence, conduct incompatible with duties or prejudicial to the employer's business, or if he has been guilty of wilful disobedience to the employer's orders in a matter of substance the law recognizes the employer's rights summarily to dismiss the delinquent employee. That's what termination means; that's not layoff.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now the member is becoming quite repetitious and is also speaking to another section, because that argument has been stated.

MR. LAUK: It has not been advanced.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the records will show that it has. Can the member summarize, please.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, "terminate" means one thing in law, in the courts, in arbitration, to a shop steward and to a working person. "Terminate" does not mean "lay off." When you include them both, you put the laid-off worker at risk of having his career record blackened and, in the minds of the public and future employers, of being guilty of serious misconduct. There are ten items that any arbitrator will look at in a termination: serious insolence, cumulative....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we have extended as much latitude and scope as we can to this amendment. I would like to hear new arguments, if there are any; if not, I would like to ask if the amendment shall pass.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, in this House we deal in precedents very often, and the government has indicated that the intent of what they are doing is to bring the public service in line with the private sector. The minister seems to think that we're just being facetious about this, but we're genuinely concerned at the departure that's being taken from legal parlance here, in terms of labour law, in combining layoff and termination. I would just like the minister to think for a moment of a case in the private sector, in my own constituency, where we had a layoff as a result of a shortage of work. The layoff....

[ Page 2631 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members....

MRS. WALLACE: I'm trying to point out what happened there, and the difference between the concepts of layoff and termination is the thing that I'm trying to get across to the minister. I'm trying to get him to reconsider the correctness of combining these two things in one definition.

In this particular instance we had a layoff because of shortage of work, and 600 employees were laid off. That was a....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if the member for Cowichan-Malahat wants to make the particular argument of termination versus layoff, she can make it in section 2, because that section addresses the question of termination and what causes for termination are. This interpretation Section is essentially the same as the termination definition in the Employment Standards Act, and it reads this way: "'Terminate' includes (a) layoff of an employee from employment, other than temporary layoff...." It is essentially tandem, and I presume that this piece of legislation, the Employment Standards Act, was strongly supported by the NDP when it was debated in this House some years ago. This legislation is consistent with the legislation that is in place in the Employment Standards Act.

MS. SANFORD: That was two years ago. What are you talking about, Jim?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must also advise the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat that I strongly suspect that the argument that is being advanced now would be most relevant, although it is not a public sector example being given, when discussing the amendment to section 2 — I think that's clear if one examines the amendments on the order paper — but not in section 1. Does the Minister for Industry and Small Business Development rise on a point of order?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I rise to speak in the debate, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member for Cowichan-Malahat can relate new argument to the amendment the Chair would appreciate that.

MRS. WALLACE: It's very difficult to advance an argument when you're constantly interrupted. I'll try and make as concise as possible why I think this is a bad amendment and contrary to labour practice and parlance. In the case that I was citing in Chemainus, because of various reasons the deadline for the layoff could not be met. It was extended because there could not be termination until there was a change of status. That change of status is part and parcel of our labour law, and to include layoff as a part of termination is completely contrary to that whole concept. That's the point I was trying to make, and the only place I can make it, as far as I can see, Mr. Chairman, is under this matter of interpretation, where the minister is trying to include layoff as termination. It certainly did not work in the Chemainus instance; it could not work. What I'm saying is that this is completely contrary to any concept we've ever had in labour legislation.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would think that we've really looked at all aspects of this particular section.

Therefore, under standing order 46, I move the question be now put.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we have been on this section for less than an hour. I have been waiting very patiently to get up and raise my points with respect to this proposed amendment. I think it is totally outrageous for the minister to move that question, and I ask that you find that it's overriding the rights of the minority and decline to put such a motion.

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we've been on this section for over an hour and a half, not just less than half an hour.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The records will show that the Chair commented quite a few times with respect to tedious and repetitious debate to other hon. members.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, am I going to be allowed to speak on this section? I've been waiting for I don't know how long to get on. You have not recognized me, but you've recognized a member of the government to move closure on this section. That is outrageous. If that isn't overriding the rights of the minority I don't know what is.

[5:45]

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the record will show very clearly that you asked the second member for Vancouver Centre whether he was rising to speak on this particular section and he said no, he was rising to speak on a point of order. So the member has had ample opportunity to speak. He wasn't denied that opportunity; he relinquished it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair has heard quite a few points of order, and the question now is: shall the question now be put?

Question approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 10

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[ Page 2632 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment to Section I of Bill 3 pass?

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 8

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

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

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. This is a question of privilege affecting my rights as a member of this House.

On one or two occasions during committee I rose on points of order while other members of the opposition were debating a particular section. I attempted to get up twice during the latter part of the debate on that proposed amendment. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was recognized and moved a closure motion on the amendment before I could make my comments on the proposed amendment by the Provincial Secretary. That's a real overriding of the minority. I ask you to consider a discussion with the Chairman of committee to consider some more reasonable way in which to determine whether other hon. members have something to contribute to committee before he cuts off debate and allows such a closure motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, matters which are subjects of committee are matters for the committee.

MR. LAUK: Except raised by privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Nonetheless, the member has raised a matter of privilege which the Chair will undertake to review at the earliest opportunity.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. The second member for Vancouver Centre suggests that his opportunity to speak on Section 1 has been denied. I suggest that we haven't yet passed the amended section, so he has the opportunity of speaking on section 1. His right to speak on that section has not been denied.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, clearly at this stage we are entering into what would best be described as a debate, but we are revolving our discussion around a committee matter.

MR. LAUK: On the same point of order, I want to refine what the minister has suggested to the Chair. It's true I can debate Section 1 in committee. The point is that the amendment to Section 1 precludes me from taking a position one way or the other on Section 1 as unamended. That really denies me an opportunity in committee to make that point clear.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

15 The Hon. H. A. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 15) intituled Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1983 to amend as follows:

SECTION I (f), by adding the following subsection:

" (6.4) Where a purchaser takes delivery of prepared meals after July 7, 1983 under a written contract that was made on or before July 7, 1983 to purchase a specified number of prepared meals at a specified price, the purchaser shall, at the time of delivery, pay to Her Majesty in right of the Province tax at the rate of 7% of the purchase price of each of the meals sold to him for a price of $7 or more, but the minister, on receipt of evidence satisfactory to him, may, out of the consolidated revenue fund, grant a refund equal to 7% of the purchase price of the prepared meals that were taxable under this subsection."