[ Page 2633 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On Section I as amended –– 2633

Mr. Lauk

Ms. Brown

Mr. Rose

Mr. Lea

Mr. Cocke

On section 2 –– 2642

Mrs. Dailly

Ms. Brown

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Rose

Mr. Lea

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Macdonald

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Skelly

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lank

Mr. Howard

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Parks

On section 3 –– 2687

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lank

Mr. Mowat

On section 4 –– 2690

Mr. Lockstead

Mrs. Wallace

On section 4.1 –– 2692

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Reynolds

On section 4.2 –– 2695

Mr. Blencoe

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Parks

On section 5 –– 2698

Ms. Brown

Mr. Cocke

Mrs. Dailly

On section 6 –– 2705

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Rose

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Mr. Nicolson

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Lea

On section 6 as amended –– 2717

Ms. Brown

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Rose

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Kempf

On section 7 –– 2721

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Skelly

Appendix –– 2724

The House met at 8:04 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

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

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

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

On Section 1 as amended.

MR. LAUK: The minister's amendment having passed by closure, section 1 as amended includes the definition "terminate," and "terminate includes layoff." Any arbitrator or judge looking at section 1, and indeed looking at the Public Sector Restraint Act, trying to determine what the intention of the Legislature was in defining the rights and duties of employers and employees in the public sector, would not be able to do so now that the amendment is included in the definition section. "Terminate" has been judicially considered, and it does not include "layoff." By its inclusion by this committee's vote now, what we have is a situation in which they will then look to see whether their interpretation of the entire act is correct.

Consider for a moment, Mr. Chairman, if the amendment were not included — if section 1 were as it was proposed in the bill. If Section 1 were left intact without the amendment, an arbitrator or judge would look at this whole act and say: "Obviously what the legislation is trying to do here is redefine termination, in terms of the act itself." Once they look at sections 1 and 2 and the other sections taken together they've got to conclude and interpret that the Public Sector Restraint Act wishes to expand and redefine, for its own purposes, layoff. If you look at section 1, and in particular section 2, you will see that the government is proposing a new definition of layoff. Layoff specifically means this: under certain circumstances — if you look at the amendments proposed in the next section we're going to deal with — it means those provisions as set out in those proposed amendments.

The thing that ultimately throws the whole thing into complete confusion is that termination now means layoff, and there's no reason to put that definition in there if you look at the intention of the whole act. But now that it's in there, it's open to an arbitrator or judge to say: "If termination includes layoff, what does layoff mean?" If you eliminate that inclusion then obviously termination is redefined in this act as layoff under these provisions. Now they're saying: "If parliament intended that, why would they include another definition of termination as including layoff?" In other words, the plain meaning of the words will indicate to any arbitrator or judge that it's absurd, and they would — or could — choose not to enforce the sections on that basis. That's the point that should be made.

The other point that should be made in this dubious piece of legislation — section 1 — is that if you look at section 1(b), it says: "...a corporation or an unincorporated board, commission, council, bureau, authority or similar body that has (i) on its board of management or board of directors, a majority of members who are appointed by an Act, a minister or the Lieutenant Governor in Council...." That wording is very unclear to me, and I don't know how it's going to be applied. It is not clear to me precisely what that means, particularly if a Crown corporation can be redefined. It says any corporation. Let's take, for example, the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation. Through the power of the government, with respect to its shareholding, it has the right to elect certain members. It seems to me that BCRIC and all of its holdings may come under the Public Sector Restraint Act. Do you follow what I'm saying? A public sector employer means a corporation or an unincorporated board. Okay, a corporation; let's say that's BCRIC. On its board of management or board of directors it has a majority of members who are appointed by an act, a minister or the cabinet. If you're looking for a strict interpretation of this it's open to interpret that the shareholding of the government will allow it to nominate and have elected — because of a majority or controlling shareholding — a majority of members on the board. You can say it's unlikely, but it's possible. It's even a reasonable possibility. If that's the case, then all of those what we consider private sector companies under BCRIC could, in its widest possible sense, come under the Public Sector Restraint Act.

So the working of paragraph (b) is really characteristic of the drafting of this act. It's not very thoughtful, and it's not as clear as it should be.

Those are the points that I wanted to make before being told to shut up, virtually, by the movement of a motion of closure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're reflecting on a previous vote now.

MR. LAUK: Yes, indeed.

In keeping with these interpretations, the minister should revise his view of the amendment that he has just included, because I think that throws more confusion into section 1 than he was trying to avoid in the first place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the section as amended pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have to be fast, hon. members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MS. BROWN: This is ridiculous.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, when the Chairman sees no one standing, one presumes that....

[8:15]

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: What do you mean, you have to be fast?

[ Page 2634 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have recognized the member for Burnaby–Edmonds. If no one wishes to speak, the Chairman presumes that in fact there's no dissension.

MS. BROWN: Well, at least give us the courtesy of being able to rise to our feet, Mr. Chairman.

There is a very distinct difference between termination and layoff. There is a distinct difference between being terminated and being laid off. When a person is laid off, it is presumed that at the first opportunity that the employer is able to take on an additional person they will be called back to the job. It is presumed that they are going to hold themselves in waiting, that they're not going to go out and find another job, because it's temporary. For the minister to say, in his amendment, that termination includes layoff is the same as saying that the definition of death includes sickness. That's nonsense. They are two completely different things. You can be laid off without being terminated, but once you are terminated you are terminated. The minister should be very clear in terms of his amendment as to just what's happening to these workers.

There was an editorial in the Times-Colonist on July 26 which said: "The problem with Bill 3 is not that it eliminates job security. The problem is that it replaces it with a distinct threat of unfair employment practices." That's what we're talking about here, Mr. Chairman. To lump layoff and termination together is to threaten to introduce unfair employment practices. A person who is laid off knows that his job is still there and it's just a matter of time until he will be rehired. Even the Unemployment Insurance Commission relates differently to a worker who is laid off than it does to a worker who is terminated. Human Resources, if you apply for income assistance, relates differently to you if you are laid off than if you are terminated. It's not one and the same. For the minister in his amendment to say that the definition of termination includes layoff is definitely to introduce unfair labour practices. They are not the same thing. He shouldn't be permitted to get away with that.

If the minister is going to terminate a worker.... If, for example, the family support workers were terminated, they should have been told they were terminated: "That's the end of your job. You're finished, you're out of work. Your job no longer exists. It's gone, it's done, it's finished with." But if they are laid off, it's with the understanding, as the Minister of Finance often likes to say, that at the first available moment, when the government finds itself financially able, these workers will be recalled. It's one or the other. The two can't be the same, because they're not the same. The definition of termination cannot include the word layoff.

You know, I can hold up the business of the House by sending to the library for a dictionary and reading into the record the definition of the words termination and layoff. I don't think I should have to do that, because I think that every member of this House should at least be clear as to the difference. Termination means end; if you're terminated, you're finished and that's it. When you're laid off that indicates that there is some hope, some possibility....

HON. MR. CHABOT: So-so.

MS. BROWN: Yes, so-so, but there is a chance. When you are terminated there is no chance. Mr. Chairman, I know that at the first opportunity the minister is going to rise to his feet and explain to us that this has been a grave error.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I shouldn't be here to educate the member for Burnaby–Edmonds. She doesn't have to drag herself out to the library; she can just meander over behind there and look at the statutes of British Columbia to get a clear definition in the Employment Standards Act, which clearly defines termination, which includes layoff. Essentially this section addresses it in the same manner as the Employment Standards Act. So it's nothing novel, it's nothing exciting; it's just a matter of law, long-time applied law in the province of British Columbia.

The fact that the member for Vancouver Centre attempts to use his legalese in an attempt to confuse the issue doesn't change the situation here. For him to use examples of BCRIC is reaching to the extreme. He might as well have used Canadian Forest Products or MacMillan Bloedel, because there's not much difference. They're all private companies with public shareholders. They've got no connection, any of those companies — BCRIC, MacMillan Bloedel or Canfor — and no relationship to the government. I want to suggest that the member for Vancouver Centre has the ability to reach and to reach very far, and on this amendment he was reaching to the extreme.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment has passed. We are on the section as amended.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you talking about?

MS. BROWN: Yes. You moved closure, didn't you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's just a point of clarification. We are on the section as amended. The amendment passed earlier.

MS. BROWN: Yes. They moved closure at a quarter to six.

Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I just think I should remind the minister that I did not support the employment standards legislation. The fact that the employment standards legislation includes a definition of termination as layoff doesn't make it right. So to use that as a justification is spurious. I'm not prepared to accept that. There is a very clear difference between being terminated.... The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) should be the first one to know the difference between termination and layoff — if one were, for example, to use it in terms of hair growth. There's a difference between its termination and its resting, which is what layoff is. Layoff is a temporary thing which hopefully will come to an end. Termination is finished, and it shouldn't be included in this.

MR. ROSE: The thought just occurred to me, Mr. Chairman, of the difference between a terminal illness and a layoff illness. I wondered if we could use the adjectives there.

But before I get there, I wonder if I could chide the Chair just gently; not abuse or criticize the Chair, but perhaps just ask for the Chair's cooperation in one matter that I think is relatively important. I think that many of us here are able to spring to our feet with alacrity, if not considerable speed, but for the Chairman to suggest that we had better hurry or rush on this is a bit precipitous. It would be helpful if perhaps the Chair could say, "Are there any more speakers on this clause?" or something along that line, because I was up there

[ Page 2635 ]

and ready to speak, but unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, you seemed to have a little bit of a problem with your left eye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just let me say that the point of order is well taken. I think the records will show that your Chairman and all Chairmen here have always been willing to allow a member to speak.

MR. ROSE: I'm relieved to hear that, because it's nice that you don't have to rush for that opportunity.

I wonder if perhaps making termination and layoff synonymous.... In effect, that's what you've done. You've made those two terms equivalent. For the purposes of the bill you could perhaps do that. That really isn't the argument here, because I agree that for the purpose of the bill you can define black as white, if you wish, and for the purpose of the bill that would probably be quite legal. Some people would probably revel in that, especially if they were lawyers and liked legalese, as the Provincial Secretary suggested.

What I'm suggesting here is that making these two terms synonymous is really an attempt to fool the people. I think it's a bit cruel there. If I were to receive a layoff notice, I would think I had some hope. But if I were to receive a termination notice, I would think that my job was terminal, that I was out and I was finished. If I were a minister and I wanted to terminate somebody, I would not issue him with a termination notice. He might go out and get all upset and go to the local bar and might even involve himself in some sort of civil disobedience; in any event, he might raise a hell of a lot of trouble. However, if you issue him only a layoff notice, he may feel: "Well, after all, if I'm laid off then if I only keep quiet there might be a chance for me to get on a little later."

So I think that if the minister defends this congruency between layoff and termination on the grounds that it appeared in an earlier bill, I don't know why we have to rush in with an amendment at the eleventh hour here when it appears....

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, it's not the eleventh hour.

MR. ROSE: Well, it was either an oversight or rotten drafting or something. It is obviously one or the other. The minister says: "After all, there's nothing new. We always equate a coma with death. There's nothing new here; don't get all excited. It's good, sound legislative practice." Layoff is a euphemism for being fired, and that's the only reason it's in here — not to make it consistent with the labour standards act at all, but to make certain that people were given the soft-touch, tough-cop routine. I think that anybody with half an ounce of brains, or even a quarter of an ounce of brains, can see through that. I don't think anybody should get away with that.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to the minister again about the difference between layoff and termination. What layoff hints at or indicates is that you've run out of jobs for the worker. The sawmill has run out of logs, widgets or whatever; the typewriter has run out of ribbon. That's what a layoff means. But once there are more logs available and there are more jobs available, the people who are laid off get first call. They're the first ones called back to do the job. They have first refusal. What termination means is that the job's finished. We're not anticipating that this plant is going to operate any longer. It's finished. For example, if a program in Human Resources is terminated, such as the child abuse programs in the Fraser Valley and the lower mainland, they're finished. Those child abuse workers aren't laid off, they're terminated. That program's finished. If, for example, the people who administer CIP — where the disabled and poor people get to pick up an additional $50 a month for doing some volunteer work — are laid off, that means that as soon as there is some work for them to do they will be called back onto the job again. But once that program is terminated, it's finished. They are not to sit around by the telephone waiting for a call that says: "Come back on the job again." They are two completely different things. As a matter of fact, I think when you're terminated all kinds of things then fall into place: your pension, your health care benefits, and those kinds of things; all sorts of termination things have to happen. You have, under the Employment Standard Act, two months' severance pay and all that kind of thing. None of that comes into effect when you are just laid off.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Aye.

MS. BROWN: As my colleague from Coquitlam said, if you really want to terminate a person, like that member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips)....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Do it under section 2.

[8:30]

MS. BROWN: No. The way to ensure that he doesn't leap up and down and start screaming and yelling and making problems is to say: "You're laid off." It's the soft touch, as my colleague from Coquitlam stated. It's the gentle way of easing a person out of a job. But it's firing without just cause. That's what it is — a rose by any other name, Mr. Chairman. It's termination in a way that ensures the least amount of turmoil and hassle for the minister and for the government.

I think the minister should he upfront about what this is all about and withdraw the amendment which says that layoffs should he included under the definition of the word termination, because, really, they are two completely different things. We have tried to show the minister that they are two completely different things. We have tried to demonstrate to the minister that we know that it is euphemistic and, well, not a totally honest way of dealing with termination. I am not accusing the minister. I am not imputing any motives to the minister, but I am saying that it is not quite an upfront way of firing people. It is in about the same category as saying positions are eliminated but people aren't fired. It is the same kind of thing. We are in 1984 now, where we are using newspeak to camouflage and hide what we are really trying to do, and that is what this amendment does. To be forthright about it the minister should withdraw the amendment.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister will come to order.

MS. BROWN: Did he call me Don Lockstead?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I wouldn't give you the honour.

[ Page 2636 ]

MS. BROWN: Well, I agree with him. I think very highly of Don Lockstead, but if his eyes are so bad that he can't see the differences between Don Lockstead and me I am wondering if he is well enough to be sitting on the floor of this House, whether he shouldn't be terminated — not even laid off, just terminated, period. That's the difference between termination and layoff, if you want to know what it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the section, please.

MS. BROWN: I think that the minister should withdraw his amendment to section 1 including layoff as part of the definition of termination.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For clarification, that amendment has passed. We are on the section as amended, which still makes debate relevant.

MR. LEA: I would like to ask the minister: has any aspect of this legislation been checked with the federal government? Has there been any consultation between the minister, his ministry or the government of British Columbia with the federal government pertaining to this act?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no.

MR. LEA: As I see it, there are going to be a number of people laid off or terminated at the end of October who won't be working with the government any longer, and I think that possibly this terminate and layoff thing may have some ramifications for people who go down to collect unemployment insurance. There are different rules for those who have been terminated and those who have been laid off; in fact, the waiting period is much longer if you have been terminated as opposed to laid off under the unemployment insurance regulations. I wonder if the minister has given any thought to that, that he may be putting these people in a very bad position when they go down to the unemployment insurance office to get benefits and the unemployment insurance officer says: "Were you laid off?" and he says: "No, I was terminated." I am afraid that the federal people aren't going to come to this interpretation of this act to find out how they should apply the federal rules. I just wonder if the minister has any comments on that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I do have some comments on it, but I will comment on it under the appropriate section of this bill.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, have you given up your job?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the statement made by the minister appears to be correct, as has been mentioned before. The application of these interpretations could be better discussed under section 2 and the amendments to section 2 listed on the order paper.

MR. LEA: But, Mr. Chairman, if section 1 passes as amended, that means that the definition of terminate then includes layoff. There is no point in talking about this in some other section, because I am afraid that once we have it in as the definition, it is going to follow in all of the rest, and they will say: "To understand the meaning, look for the definition in section 1. I think it is germane to section 1 that it be defined definitively, because it is going to make an awful difference to somebody.... Maybe I am wrong, but I would like to clear it up. What it points out is that there hasn't been a great deal of thought given to this whole legislative package. It was thrown together in a hurry, as fast as the Fraser Institute could think. If this definition of "terminate includes lay off" stands as it is, I am afraid there are going to be a great many British Columbians who are going to be terminated, who go down to collect unemployment insurance and they will say: "Well, I am afraid you were terminated, and our laws are specific that if you were terminated you can't collect unemployment for quite a length of time." I think that is a very important item. Once we have this in section 1 as the definition, then all other sections follow, and I think this is the section to clear it up under.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for Prince Rupert is attempting to muddy the waters. Really, we are just saying here that termination includes layoff, and I think it is fairly clear. For him to suggest that because there is a definition in the interpretation section, section 1 — that it flows into section 2 and has a tremendous impact on section 2 of this legislation — is mere nonsense. When the Employment Standards Act was introduced, you might have had some concerns, but if my memory serves me correctly you didn't really object to the interpretation of that particular act, where termination, including layoff, was defined. If you are not prepared to accept the definition of the laws of British Columbia, I just happen to have another definition which might help allay your fears or your concerns about the wisdom of this particular amendment. This is from Black's Law Dictionary, fifth edition, and it says: "A termination of employment at the will of employer. Such may be temporary, that is, caused by seasonal or adverse economic conditions, or permanent." The Employment Standards Act says precisely the same thing in slightly different words, so there is nothing bewildering, shocking or confusing about this particular, slight, three-word amendment to section 1. For you people to read something sinister into this particular amendment is sheer foot-dragging.

MR. LEA: Heavens above! Sinister, Mr. Chairman? My goodness, we would never think anything like that of this minister, even though he accused me of trying to deliberately muddy up the waters instead of asking a question that I wanted an answer for.

I could have asked him to withdraw, but I didn't — not that I think he is sinister, just possibly a little silly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member we are getting a bit personal.

MR. LEA: You're darned right I am, because he was. If he had been asked to withdraw, we wouldn't have gotten to mine. He said I was trying to muddy the waters in this chamber, and what I am trying to do is to protect workers so that when they go down to collect their unemployment insurance there is no undue delay. It may only be an administrative statistical problem for a minister, but for a family not to have food on the table because they cannot get their unemployment insurance cheque is a far different matter.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, the member is attempting to make a point under the wrong section of this

[ Page 2637 ]

legislation. I have already indicated to that member that I am prepared to answer his question under the proper section of the legislation. I am not going to answer it under the interpretation section, as much as you want to spring to the rooftops and attempt to bring tear-jerker stories here on this particular issue. I will answer your questions under the proper section of the legislation, not under section 1.

MR. LEA: Well, I am sorry I asked a question that the minister didn't know the answer to...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: ...but it is obvious that the minister hasn't checked with the federal government and doesn't even know what he is talking about; that's what is obvious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we can have strictly relevant conversation and debate on all these sections of the bill. The minister makes the point that he feels that we are not being relevant with our debate on section 1 as amended. He has indicated that there are other sections where the debate being offered now might be better presented, and the Chair has a tendency to agree with him after looking at all of the sections and the amendments to further sections of the bill. I will ask if the hon. member for Prince Rupert can make his remarks with respect to section 1 as amended now.

MR. LEA: Are you ruling?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am not ruling, hon. member, I am just pointing out that we must be strictly relevant.

MR. LEA: I will reword that. I am not trying to be argumentative. I will not say "ruling," because I am not going to trick you into a division. Are you saying that when I read the word "terminate" in further sections, after section 1, it may not include layoff? Is that what the minister is saying? Am I being silly to think that when I read terminate in some section following section 1, and I go back to the interpretation, the interpretation doesn't matter — that we can have any interpretation we want later on? That just doesn't make sense, Mr. Chairman. What I am saying is that I would like to have this word completely defined prior to us getting on to sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on. I just asked a simple question.

I wanted to know whether there had been any checking with the federal government to see whether or not this would in any way — and it may not.... Maybe I'm worrying about something that shouldn't be worried about. But then I'm not the government; I didn't draft the legislation. It seems to me to be sloppy for the minister to bring in a bill of this magnitude and not check with federal ministries of the government to see whether there's any problem in dealing with rules set down. We are Canadians and British Columbians....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member is discussing the consequences of termination, which are better discussed under section 2, which addresses terminations. Section 1 does not. It is a definition section, and it does not address the consequences of termination. If he wants to ask a question about the ramifications of an individual being terminated, he had better ask it under the right section.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. If we can retain composure briefly. There is a very fine line. I appreciate the concerns expressed by the member for Prince Rupert and other members who have taken their place in debate. I sincerely hope that they appreciate the fine line that the Chair has to consider as to whether we're debating the interpretation section, or other sections which deal with the application of those interpretations.

Further, the minister has indicated that he is quite prepared to discuss the application in subsequent sections. I'm sure the hon. minister has to be taken at his word.

MR. LEA: The minister took some umbrage that someone was talking about legalese. We are talking about legislation and the legalities of things. There is no other legalese except what goes through this or the federal House. People are going to interpret this act as it pertains to section 1 and how it is in the definition. Each act can define on its own; it doesn't have to refer to another act. So when anybody in court takes a look at this act, they're not going to go to another act to see what "terminate" means. They're going to use the definition in this act. As much as the minister would like to point to some other act and say it's exactly the same, I'm afraid a court wouldn't look at any other act. They would look at the definition of "terminate" or "layoff" as it is put into the definition of this act.

I would like to use an analogy. If you're looking at the top of a legal contract, and it says, "The party of the first part will be known as X," there's no point in the minister saying: "Oh, but when it looks at X further down, we'll talk about it then and see how it affects the person because it is defined in the definition of the party of the first part being known as X." Once section 1 is passed there is no turning back. Whatever "terminate" means is going to stick under the definition of this act. Whatever "layoff" means is going to stick under the definition of this act.

[8:45]

We may very well get to another section where the minister says: "Oh, I'm going to answer all your questions, but I'm sorry, I wish you had raised that in section 1 under the definition." We're stuck with the definition, unless the minister is telling us that if we do run into a problem....

I hope he sent his deputy, or whoever is sitting with him, out to check to see whether this will have any implications with the.... The only part I'm worried about at this particular time is how this will apply to unemployment insurance. I really hate to let section 1 go through without having some idea whether this definition, as applied to all the other sections of the act, is going to preclude people from drawing unemployment when they should be able to draw it under termination and not layoff. Those two words are defined differently by the federal government when one is applying for unemployment insurance. When the minister talks about my having a sob story, yes, it is a sob story. I would hate to see that some family is not going to have food on the table when they should have because the minister is anxious to get section 1 through. If that's a sob story, then so be it; I'm guilty. But it seems to me that the minister is a little hasty. I

[ Page 2638 ]

don't know what it is. Do they want to have this through before the Socred convention at the end of the week? He may have his own motives and his own time schedule. All I know is that it won't matter very much to the family that may not have food on the table because of the minister's haste in getting section 1 through, and having the definition of "terminate includes lay off" in this legislation.

If the minister would, when his person comes back.... Why not leave this for a while? Let's come back to it. The minister laughs. "How silly," he says. "Why would we leave it for a while? The government's got to have it right now," he says. "There's no fooling around. Let's get it through. I'll talk about it later."

When we raised the point in second reading, they said: "Talk about it in committee." We get into committee and they say: "You can't talk about it in committee; that's principle. You should have talked about it in second reading."

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nonsense.

MR. LEA: The minister knows I'm telling the truth. He's squirming a little, Mr. Chairman; that's all.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're a twister!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The minister will come to order.

MR. LEA: As the hon. member for Coquitlam–Moody (Mr. Rose) said, we all know there is.... Talk about legalese. Yes, there's legalese subterfuge here all right. The fact of the matter is, the public were worried about people getting fired without cause. They were worried about people being terminated. Do you know the difference between laid off and terminated, Mr. Chairman? When you're terminated you're through with the company. They take you off the rolls; you've got nothing further to do with them. They start doing up your pension plan, your last cheque, and you're gone. When you get laid off, you're not off the company rolls. You're just not working for the moment, and you're not getting paid. That's the big difference. In my opinion, what the government is trying to do with " 'terminate' includes lay off" is to terminate a bunch of people and say it was a layoff. But as far as I can understand it, these people, when they're laid off under the definition of this act, have no hope. They're not still on the government payroll and just not getting paid; they are not getting paid and they're no longer on the government books at all. There's no hope.

Mr. Chairman, if we let this go through, then we're going to see a whole lot of people terminated: off the books, off the payroll, off the pension plan, off the denticare plan, off the medical plan. They're finished. What would be wrong with the government saying: "Okay, at this point we're going to lay you off. Who knows? Maybe the economy will pick up. Maybe there's a new program we'll want to start and you could come back to work for us — with your seniority." This is going to make sure that their seniority is gone too. Once we let this definition go through in section 1, in all other sections of this act it is going to be final.

The minister may be anxious to get it through — the government may be even more anxious than he is — but in our anxiety to get this through the House, if we do one single person in this province an injustice, then in my opinion we are all guilty of misconduct towards the public.

MS. BROWN: The minister says: "Why all this fuss about three little words?" There have been wars started over three little words.

I want to tell you what he does and why it is so important, Mr. Chairman, that we deal with this definition in section 1. It says in section 1 that " 'terminate' includes lay off." He then proceeds to section 2, which is headed "Termination of employees" but which spells out layoff provisions. So as soon as we let it through that termination and layoff are one and the same, he's off to the races. The workers of the province will have no protection whatsoever.

I want to give you a couple of definitions of layoff and termination. I'm only doing this because the minister initiated the practice. I want to start with the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, first edited by H.W. Fowler and FG. Fowler.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is that a legal dictionary?

MS. BROWN: No. I'm talking about ordinary human beings. I'm not talking about legal ideas and concepts. I'm talking about working people.

It defines layoff as a period during which a worker is temporarily discharged — slack. The same dictionary gives as a definition for terminate: "Bring or come to an end" — make an end of. There's nothing temporary about termination — it is like death. It is the end; it is finished; it is over; it is done with. But as the minister said, it's not a legal dictionary.

Let's look at the Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases, which is classified and arranged so as to facilitate the expression of ideas. What does it say about termination? "End, conclusion, finish, doomsday, day of judgment, fall of the curtain, windup, destination, end-all, expiration, expiry, death, end of all things, finality, last stage, death blow, knockout, end, close, finish, conclude, expire, draw to a close, have run its course, run out, pass away, put an end to, make an end of, get through, achieve, final, terminal, definitive, conclusive, last, ultimate, once and for all." That's what terminate means.

Let's look at the collective agreement negotiated between this government and its workers on October 25, 1982. What is its definition of layoff? "Layoff is a cessation of employment as a result of a reduction of the amount of work required to be done by the employer, and where, should work become available, employees will be recalled in accordance with article 13 or article 31." And lo and behold, number 27 has a completely different definition of termination. "Termination is the separation of an employee from the public service for cause, pursuant to articles 10, 11 or 31." In this amendment the minister is trying to say that the separation of an employee from the public service is exactly the same as the cessation of employment as a result of a reduction of the amount of work required to be done, and which would result, should more work become available, in the recall of the employee, according to articles 13 or 31.

Is that what the minister is trying to say? In other words, Mr. Minister, should a worker receiving a termination notice assume that she or he is merely being laid off? That is my question. Will the minister respond to that question?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll respond to it under the appropriate section of this act.

[ Page 2639 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to bring to your attention — not reflecting on a vote any more than I have to — that this is the very section where we had closure pulled on us today. This amendment is the one where closure was declared by the hon. member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips). The mistake we make in this committee is that we don't thoroughly canvass something before all of a sudden somebody jumps in. Mr. Chairman, you have seen the difference of opinion in terms of the understanding of what we are talking about here. On the one hand you have layoff and on the other you have termination. As far as I'm concerned, this addendum to the interpretation section of the bill makes all the difference in the world. The minister says let's discuss it under section 2. Once you get to section 2 you're living with what we see to be wrong in section 1, regardless.

[9:00]

I'm not going to go into any further detail. I'm just trying to point out that the whole thing is a mishmash by virtue of the fact that it wasn't properly talked out in the first place. This bill was a travesty to begin with. This section was nuts. The amendments have done nothing to modify my concerns. As a matter of fact, when you put the amended section in terms of section 2, and I'll deal with that in more detail.... Where you've taken off the "without cause" and put in this interpretation, as far as I'm concerned you've given us exactly what we had in the first place. And that's it. Anybody who says this bill isn't as bad as it was to begin with is nutty. You have done exactly what you intended to do in the first place. You've changed a few words here and there.... Yes, you wink, Mr. Minister. I would wink too if I was trying to get away with this kind of travesty. The fact of the matter is, this bill is as bad as it ever was — worse, if anything, because it's couched in.... Maybe editorials will buy some of this junk. In any event, that's precisely what it is.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has made quite a fuss about the definition in Black's dictionary and about whether or not layoff and termination are actually synonymous. I don't think that's really the point. What we're concerned about is whether or not the definitions in this act of layoff, termination and unemployment are synonymous with those in the Unemployment Insurance Act. That is the concern here. If someone takes his layoff or termination notice in his hot little hand and trots down to the unemployment insurance office expecting benefits, the different words in the notice may produce quite different results.

Just to elaborate a little further on that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister a question. Are the benefits to be awarded an employee of the government who has received a termination notice different from those awarded to someone who has received a layoff notice? Are the benefits any different?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: All kinds. Pensions and that sort of thing. Various kinds of fringes. Severance pay, pension and the rest of it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, my answer is that this is an interpretation section which we're dealing with. The question of termination or layoff is addressed in section 2 and would be more appropriately answered under the appropriate section.

MR. ROSE: With all due respect — and again I think the point has been made by a number of people on this side — it might be....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'm getting a little fed up with these people attempting to discuss the entire bill under the interpretation section. If they want to address the problems associated with people being terminated, they had better do it under the appropriate section and not under the interpretation section, which doesn't address the question of terminations. Those are under section 2. I'm sure you can read. You're attempting to fuzzy everything up here, and to delay and hold things up so that section 1 will never be passed. That's what you're trying to do.

MR. COCKE: On that very point of order, if we cannot clarify the interpretation, then what is the point of going on to this section which deals with layoffs or terminations?

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't asking the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to involve himself in this; I was asking that the minister responsible for the bill try to tell us why he's raising a point of order which in my view is totally irrelevant. We're dealing with interpretations at this time, with respect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As I've already pointed out to the hon. members, the Chair has some difficulty with this and I'm sure the committee will appreciate that. We are on an interpretation section, and members have dealt with interpretation and then strayed into application as it's further defined in other sections and other amendments. If we can make our remarks strictly relevant to the interpretation section, which is section 1 as amended before us now, then debate can continue. I'm sure hon. members will appreciate the difficulty the Chair has in this fine definition, and also the difficulty that maybe the minister has. The minister has given the committee a solid understanding that questions with respect to applications and interpretation of the applications will be dealt with in following sections.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I thought that I was being rather gentle about this, and the fact that the minister is upset with me really doesn't worry me at all. That's of no consequence to me. I'm not standing up here to provoke the minister or to make his life easy or to provide a substitute for Valium. I'm up here as a duly elected representative, the same as the minister, to determine whether those two terms are synonymous under the act and whether there exists any difference in the benefits accruing to one public employee laid off as compared to one public employee terminated, because it makes a lot of difference in a number of other areas, including pension rights, vesting, severance pay and even unemployment insurance. As I recall — and I don't have the act before me — the Unemployment Insurance Commission pays on the basis of loss of income due to unemployment. Loss of income is not a fact if you have severance pay; you have unemployment, but you don't have loss of income due to unemployment. You might think this is a thin line, but lawyers retire on all these thin lines.

If we don't get the distinction here between an employee who is laid off and who may very well qualify immediately

[ Page 2640 ]

for unemployment insurance under the definition I just gave you, and one who is not eligible because of his severance pay.... It makes a big difference to me, and it would make a big difference to that employee as well. So if you can't make your definitions clear in your interpretation section, how can you make them clearer in its consequences, which are the sections following it? That's a simple question and, I think, an important one. If that is defined, as you euphemistically define layoff with termination.... If you define what I'm saying as stalling, then I would suggest that most of the courtrooms in this country have been involved in stalling. We want a clear, precise answer on the difference between layoff and termination when it comes to the government's benefits package. That's all we're asking for.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to discuss what's going to happen to the worker as an end result of whether that worker is terminated or laid off. I'm going to deal with the amendment, which says that the definition of termination includes layoff. The definition of termination does not include layoff. I have looked in the collective agreement negotiated by the minister with the representatives of the people employed by this government, and they have come up with two different definitions. They have a definition for termination, and they have a definition for layoff. If they were one and the same at the time when that collective agreement was being hammered out, the minister had an opportunity at that time to say: "We don't need article 17 and article 27, because article 27 embodies article 17. They're one and the same."

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're all mixed up.

MS. BROWN: The minister keeps mumbling that I'm mixed up...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS. BROWN: ...and his colleagues agree with him. If I'm mixed up, it's because the words of the minister are mixed up. It states here quite clearly: "...'terminate' includes lay off." A little less than a year ago the minister sat down around the bargaining table with his employees and hammered out a collective agreement, and that collective agreement carried a different definition for termination than it did for layoff. If they were one and the same.... Get your copy of the master agreement, because I'm at a disadvantage knowing more about this than you. You can't debate with me intelligently because I've got the copy and you haven't. There, now you've found your copy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Address the Chair, please.

MS. BROWN: Through you, Mr. Chairman, turn to page 3. Now we're looking under definition 17, the definition of layoff: "Layoff is a cessation of employment as a result of a reduction of the amount of work required to be done by the employer, and where, should work become available, employees will be recalled...." That's the basis of layoff, that you're eligible to be recalled. That is the definitive difference between layoff and termination. Under number 27, which gives a definition for termination, there is no mention of recall, and it makes sense, because where there's a legal, social, literary, religious, road-sign or poetic definition, termination means end; finish; that's it; there is no more.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Tout finis.

MS. BROWN: In any language, that's right, and that is the intrinsic difference that makes this section 1 amendment inoperable. The difficulty that we're having with you, Mr. Chairman, is that if we accept this section 1 amendment, then that means that we have accepted that terminations and layoffs are one and the same, so that when they show up in other sections of the act, it's a fait accompli. That is not possible.

The minister is going to respond, now that he has read his master contract.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I'll be very brief, because I don't want to go into the whole legislation under the interpretation section, but really, the argument the member for Burnaby–Edmonds across there is putting forward on the question of dismissal, suspensions and things of that nature — dismissals essentially for just cause.... Remember that: just cause. They are quite different and quite separate from what we're talking about — termination — here. Keep that in mind. Dismissals for just cause in the collective agreement will always be there, despite the fact that we're talking about terminations here for economic reasons. There's a substantial difference between the kind of terminations and causes that are defined here and the just causes that are defined in the collective agreement. That's what you must understand, and that's what you're failing to understand. There is a substantial difference.

MR. LEA: The minister just made, I think, quite a statement. He said there's quite a difference between without cause....

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I said "with cause" versus "just cause."

MR. LEA: Well, you can't have quite a difference between without cause and not with....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the minister whether his assistant.... Maybe the minister should tell us who it is so we don't have to keep referring to....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, the gentleman beside me, who will remain silent, is Robert Plecas.

MR. LEA: What's his post?

HON. MR. CHABOT: He's a director in the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the minister: has it been checked out to see how this affects the Unemployment Insurance Act?

[ Page 2641 ]

[9:15]

HON. MR. CHABOT: That question is one that should best be put under section 2, at which time a response will be given.

MR. REYNOLDS: Listening to the member for Prince Rupert saying that once this section is passed there is no turning back, and the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) saying: "Some editorialists will buy some of this junk...." Mr. Chairman, we've been listening to the NDP on this legislation for an extremely long time — in fact, 53½ hours in second reading — and on this section I've been sitting here listening faithfully since they started to debate it and the amendment. The debate is repetitious — I think you've talked to them a few times about that — and because of that I move that the question be now put.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I find it absolutely hilarious that the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) moved an earlier closure in this House — the member who debated a bill for 14 hours — and now the member from the Conservative Party, which kept the bells ringing in Ottawa for bloody days.... These people, without any kind of conscience, are moving closure in this House. It's absolutely beyond any kind of understanding that I can put forward. Mr. Chairman, I think that this committee has resolved itself into chaos, and it was all started by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who should bow his head in shame forever in our province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. When standing order 46 is moved, there are points of order but there is no debate.

Now the member for Burnaby–Edmonds on a point of order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that I wish there were some way that the people of British Columbia would know that that member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound is drawing a salary to sit here and count hours. He hasn't participated in any of the debates in this House. All he does is sit there and count on his fingers and his toes until he comes up to 52 or 53, depending on how many fingers and toes he has, and that's the only contribution that he can make to the debate in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, hon. member. I've accepted enough points of order.... All right, the member for Nelson–Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I hope that before you consider whether or not the question should be put, some consideration will be given to the matter that certain very important parts of this section have not yet been debated. There are some inconsistencies in the schedule which is referred to in this particular section. There is also the definition of an improvement district, which certainly gives me some cause for concern. I've been waiting for the answers to be forthcoming on some of the questions that have been raised, certainly with the intention of taking my place in the debate on this section.

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member for Burnaby–Edmonds made some comments about me, and I would just like to tell her I would be happy to debate her anywhere in the province on this issue or cricket; she can have her choice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I think we have now exhausted the points of order.

Question 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.

Section 1 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 8

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

[9:30]

On section 2.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

[ Page 2642 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will take these as we have done in the past, one at a time, so we are now considering section 2(l) — that amendment as indicated on the order paper standing in the name of the minister.

On the amendment.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here, of course, with one of the most infamous clauses in this whole bill, which of course originally dealt with firing without cause. I want to start off with one question to the minister. As he did not choose even to give us the courtesy of explaining this amendment, I wonder if I could ask him a direct question, and that is: why did you not just simply allow the Labour Code and the Public Service Labour Relations Act to take the place of that clause? Why did you have to remove it?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Take the place of what?

MRS. DAILLY: I'll put it this way, and perhaps it'll be clearer: why did you not apply the B.C. Labour Code and the Public Service Labour Relations Act to this particular clause instead of messing around with it in a way that is very confusing and that actually gives no hope to the employees that you have really alleviated their basic concerns? I'm just asking you this: why do you not just apply the Labour Code?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the public servants of British Columbia come under the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and the provisions under that act and the collective agreement don't allow the government to downsize to meet the shortcoming of revenue; therefore we've had to introduce this particular piece of legislation.

We're probably dealing with one of the most significant parts of the legislation at this time. What it essentially does is say, really, that in circumstances where "there is insufficient work or insufficient current operating funds budgeted to maintain current levels of employment," or where the employer "makes a change in the organizational structure" or "discontinues a program, activity or service of the employer, or reduces the level of an activity or service to the employer, the public sector employer may terminate the employment of an employee in accordance with the regulations." Now what we're saying, essentially, there is that under the circumstances there is a need for downsizing the public service in British Columbia, and we're doing it under this particular section.

I want to say this is not a — I forget the adjective you used, but the suggestion was that it's a horrible piece of legislation. The terminology used in this particular section is terminology that is in place by law in the provinces of Ontario, socialist Manitoba, Saskatchewan and, I believe, Nova Scotia. Those four provinces used language identical to that used in this particular legislation to give them the ability to downsize the public service in their provinces. Under our collective agreement, because of tenure and job security, we don't have the ability to downsize to respond to the lack of revenue flowing to government; we therefore had to introduce this piece of legislation, which is similiar to legislation that exists in four of the provinces. No more and no less. We are saying that in the event the people of British Columbia can't afford certain programs of government, we must downsize. Some of those nonessential programs must fall by the wayside, and as those nonessential programs disappear, needless to say, some positions must go as well. This is the mechanism whereby we can downsize the public service of British Columbia. The mechanism is not foreign to this country but is in place in four other provinces.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MRS. DAILLY: I want to thank the minister for elaborating on that. It gives us a better opportunity to continue a more positive discussion.

I would like to ask the minister this question: in your need, as you say, to downsize, did you not have the mechanism available through the actual cooperative meetings that took place at some time, I understand, between the B.C. Government Employees' Union and the Government Employee Relations Bureau, which negotiates with them? Is it not true that the union had been prepared to sit down and face the realities of the economy, but that they wanted to do it collectively, cooperatively and with the feeling that fairness would ensue? To achieve your government's goals — we're not here to argue that; we'll do that at another time — was it really necessary to bring in this heavy hand?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is yes. Immediately on the introduction of this legislation responding to the economic circumstances in the provinces, I established a consultative process. I attempted to contact and meet.... Immediately on introduction of the legislation, I sent a telegram to all the public service unions of the province and asked them to meet with me in my office to discuss the ramifications of this legislation and the possibility of changes which they felt would be appropriate. At no time was an overture made to me that we sit down and attempt, through the collective agreement, to address the very serious economic condition faced by the province. The B.C. Government Employees' Union and its president and vice-president — or whatever his position is — plus representatives of about five or six other unions came to my office to discuss.... I had hoped to discuss Bill 2 and 3 and to determine what the ramifications were for the unions. But the only discussion was the request by Mr. Richards to read a three-page legal document prepared for him, indicating that the only thing they would accept was a complete withdrawal of Bills 2 and 3. I attempted to discuss the points they raised in the brief they had presented to me way back in July. They didn't even want to discuss my point of view on their brief, let alone answer my request for input on the particular legislation and its ramifications.

I then proceeded to meet with other employer groups in the province. I met with the Employers' Council of British Columbia, the public sector employers' council — or whatever their proper title is — and with the trade union leaders in the province. I met in Vancouver with the secretary of the B.C. Federation of Labour, Art Kube, and with Mr. Placas, and we discussed Bill 3. One of the two major issues raised by Mr. Kube at that meeting in the cabinet chambers — those chambers that were occupied a while back — was that they could not accept that language "without cause." I listened, certainly. It wasn't long after I had that meeting with Mr. Kube that I came back with amendments in this House because those words were found offensive by Mr. Kube and by others in the province, not necessarily of the trade union bent or affiliation. The other issue Mr. Kube raised with me

[ Page 2643 ]

was the question of recognition of seniority. There will be recognition of seniority, and it is spelled out in the regulations.

MS. BROWN: Where are the regulations?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The regulations are available. Do you want a copy?

MS. BROWN: Yes.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We'll send you over a copy.

It was a very worthwhile meeting because it identified for me that the two major concerns were the words "without cause" and some recognition of seniority. I told Mr. Kube at that meeting that I would take into consideration the concerns he had expressed to me, and I have. I've removed those words "without cause" and I have defined cause here similar to how cause is defined in the other four provinces. While I didn't give him assurances of seniority, I told him I would look at it. I recognize the importance of seniority, coming from a company where seniority was very important to me. It meant working or not working. Seniority is recognized in the regulations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you still have your seniority?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I don't have seniority any more, being junior management. I still have my pension rights.

MS. BROWN: There are a number of things I want to raise on this section, but I want to start by dealing with the word "non-essential." In speaking to this section, the minister said that in order to balance the books, non-essential services were cut. I want to give you a list of those non-essential services. It includes the family support worker program, which cared for no fewer than 1,000 children, according to the annual report of the Ministry of Human Resources for 1980. That annual report went on to brag that as a direct result of this program, fewer children were taken out of their families and into the care of the superintendent of child welfare. That's one of the non-essential programs which was cut. It lost 226 of its child care workers.

Another non-essential program was the family and child assessment team, known as the child abuse program, in the Vancouver and Fraser Valley area. Again, if we can go by the statement made by the ministry in February, the minister boasted that 3,504 cases of child abuse were investigated in 1982, of which 2,886 were found to have foundation. I am only raising this because the minister raised the issue that the programs that were cut were non-essential. I think it only fair that we know what this government's definition is of a non-essential program.

The report says that as a result of the actions of this team, 673 children were removed from their families, 35 were sent to hospital, and criminal charges were laid in 133 cases. This team worked with children who were the victims of incest, rape and child abuse. That's another of the non-essential programs which that minister tells us were cut.

The income assistance coordinators. They are supposed to be rehabilitation workers, working with income assistance clients to help them get off welfare and into the workforce. That's one of the non-essential programs that the Provincial Secretary tells us were cut so the government could downsize the public sector.

In-home services, the mental retardation coordinators.... He's yawning! He finds this whole exercise boring.

[9:45]

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the member is straying into estimates for the Ministry of Human Resources and is really off the point of section 2. In this particular debate I think we need to stay with the meaning of section 2 and not to discuss details of the Ministry of Human Resources.

MS. BROWN: If the minister had been listening, he would have heard the Provincial Secretary, in explaining section 2 of this act, state very clearly that non-essential services were eliminated in order to downsize the public sector. It was the minister who introduced that point. I was not the person who introduced that point.

HON. MR. McGEER: The individual members of the opposition will have an opportunity to discuss in detail at a later time the estimates of each ministry individually, and can at that time debate with the ministers their particular programs and what they deem to be desirable or undesirable. But if we embark upon a debate of this kind during section 2 of the bill, clearly we could cover the material appropriate to estimates of every single minister of the government. While we may at this particular time be discussing Human Resources, we could as well extend that type of debate to include Education, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Attorney-General, the Ministry of Science and so on. If the member does not have material that applies to this particular section, I really think we should terminate the debate and vote on this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister is certainly correct when he refers to the debate on the estimates. Perhaps we could proceed and devote ourselves to the amendment to section 2(l).

MS. BROWN: I am addressing myself to the amendment to section 2.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, Standing order 38 states that "A member addressing the House shall, if called to order by Mr. Speaker, or on a point raised by another member, sit down while the point of order is being stated." The member stands now and stood during the point of order raised by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. I would suggest that she show some courtesy to the rules of the House by taking her seat when a point of order is raised.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Forests is quite correct. The Chair didn't notice because the Chair was watching the speaker at that moment. Would you proceed, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I hope the record will show that the contribution the Minister of Forests has made to this legislation and to this act is to tell the member to sit down. That's the sum total of his contribution. It is understandable why the Minister of Universities, Science and

[ Page 2644 ]

Communications would be uncomfortable with the statements I am making. However, the Provincial Secretary, in introducing and explaining this amendment, very clearly stated that non-essential programs were terminated so as to accomplish the government's goal of downsizing the public sector. That was the minister's statement. If the minister wandered into estimates, I am not going to be held responsible. However, I think it is only fair that the House should know what programs the minister meant when he referred to them as non-essential. It was the minister speaking on section 2 of this bill who introduced the whole discussion of nonessential services. I was not the person who introduced this discussion. The member from Point Grey has one function and one function only in this House: to curtail the debate of the opposition and to see to it that we do not have protected our right to participate in the debate on the floor of this House. And so be it. He's the government. He's got the majority. He can terminate this discussion whenever he wants to,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has been very considerate of your remarks as they have been put forward and would appreciate it if you could direct your comments to the amendment to section 2. I think you have made your point.

HON. MR. McGEER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. There is no attempt to curtail debate. There is only an attempt to make the debate appropriate to the point of consideration. The member will have ample opportunity during the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources to raise all of the points she is raising under Bill 3. If we were to have finished the debate of the Ministry of Human Resources, there might be some point to the member's remarks this evening, but the appropriate time for that particular debate is under the Ministry of Human Resources. I must insist that the rules of the House not be abused, and that the member either take up something relevant to section 2 or be asked to take her place so we can vote on the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've made your point of order, Mr. Minister, and I thank you very much. Once again I would ask that the hon. member for Burnaby–Edmonds please direct her comments to the amendment to section 2.

MS. BROWN: I want the record to show that I have been thoroughly intimidated. I am intimidated. I am going to change my course of action. I'm going to change the comments I make because I recognize that when you are up against a bully, it is better to run than to stay and have your head beaten into the ground. I recognize that and I'm not going to pursue this any further. I have been intimidated. I am going to change.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Your pursuit is taking a long time, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: That's fine. I will get on to other business. I just wanted to explain why I am not being allowed to respond to the minister's statements.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is now moving from the irrelevant to the offensive. By that I don't mean in a debating sense; I mean in the sense of propriety of the House. I would ask that the member withdraw those offensive remarks, because they are uncalled for and inappropriate. If she would only make her debate relevant to section 2, I am sure the House would be most pleased to listen to the remarks she has to make.

MS. BROWN: I was referring to my experiences. I am the one who is feeling bullied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the words used were unparliamentary. Would you mind withdrawing?

MS. BROWN: I said I was feeling bullied, Mr. Chairman. I have my feelings, and I am feeling that I am being bullied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not what the Chair heard, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Well, I will withdraw whatever the Chair heard and repeat that I am being intimidated and I am feeling that I am being bullied. Whatever else the Chair may have heard, I'm willing to withdraw. But I will repeat that I am being intimidated and I am being bullied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, hon. member. The only thing I would like anyone to repeat is something that's relevant to the amendment to section 2(l).

MS. BROWN: And what is relevant, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister made a statement about non-essential services. I am responding to the minister's statement. However, I cannot continue to respond to the minister's statement because I have been intimidated and bullied. I cannot continue to respond to the minister's statement, and the list of non-essential services cannot be discussed on the floor of this House. So I will go on to talk about something else.

Would you like me to sit down again?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, please. The Minister of Forests on a point of order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the way the members opposite are going it's very likely that some hours from now some member of the government, completely tired of the irrelevant babble from opposite, will probably move a motion that the vote be now put. At that time I'm sure the member now speaking will leap to her feet and tell the world how she has been prevented from addressing the pertinent sections of the amendment we are now debating. I suggest therefore that she address these amendments now, rather than the irrelevant babbling she has been carrying on with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, that is not a point of order. I would suggest to all members that constant interruptions — to mean taking advantage of points of order such that they become constant interruptions — are disruptive to the business of this House, and I would ask hon. members to consider very carefully before they rise on a point of order.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, on the point of order raised by that minister and by the Minister of Science, (a), (b), (c) or (d) are not areas where the member for

[ Page 2645 ]

Burnaby–Edmonds can discuss the question of termination, can discuss the question of irrelevancy of programs, and so on and so forth. When it was the minister who raised it in the first place, talking in terms that the member is now raising, I think it's quite in order. In any event, Mr. Chairman, I feel there is no way we can continue with this debate other than line by line, and if we must, we will.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: I think it's unfortunate that we do not have access to instant Hansard on the floor of the House. However, I made some notes, and when the minister, in his explanation on section 2, responded by referring to the termination of non-essential services, that was not ruled out of order. That was accepted as being completely in order. It seems, therefore, that for a member of the opposition to respond should also be in order, notwithstanding the statements made by the great alleged parliamentarians from Point Grey and elsewhere. However, I accept your ruling that although it was in order for the minister to refer to the termination of vital services to children in this province, for me to respond to that statement and to demonstrate and list the kinds of services which that government considers to be non-essential is out of order. I accept that. And I'm also saying that in accepting that, I accept that I have been bullied.

Now it's been suggested that we go on and debate line by line. The first line in this section is the word "notwithstanding," and I, Mr. Chairman, am not going to support that word "notwithstanding." What that word says, when it's added to the Labour Code and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, is that those acts are without value. They are not important and we should discard them, in the same way as we discard the children who are the victims of incest and refer to the services for them as non-essential, in the same way as the Provincial Secretary used the term "non-essential" in talking about wiping out that program in order to realize his goal of downsizing the public sector. So I'm not going to support the word "notwithstanding," and I'm not going to support section 2(l), which says that a public sector worker may be terminated, notwithstanding the Labour Code and the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The section then goes on to list not termination reasons but layoff reasons, which we are not permitted to debate because that was dealt with in section 1 — even though it wasn't dealt with in section 1; the minister said he wouldn't deal with it in section 1 because that was a definition section. But all of the things listed in section 2 are part of the definition for layoff, not termination. For that reason we are not going to support the fact that the Labour Code and the Public Service Labour Relations Act should be cast aside and ignored when this government decides to lay off workers or terminate workers without cause.

[10:00]

That is precisely what this section does. There is nothing in the section that says a person should be terminated because their work is unsatisfactory. There is nothing in the section that says a person should be terminated because they have failed to carry out their job. All that the section talks about is insufficient work, insufficient operating funds, discontinuation of programs, such as the child abuse program which the minister referred to as non-essential. All of those are geared to the employer's wishes and interpretation, and to what happens to the employer, not to the employee.

So what we have is termination without cause. What we have is that this minister has succeeded in doing by one means what he was unable to do by another means, and he justifies this by saying that the programs which are going to be lost as a result are non-essential. That minister who, having done his damage, has now left the House said: "Wait and debate it under the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources." What's the point then? The programs will all be gone, and it'll be etched in Hansard, written in the records, that those programs are considered non-essential and referred to as non-essential by the Provincial Secretary and by that government. Maybe some of them, in the eyes of the government, are. I mean, why should they care about services to the mentally retarded? Why should they care about post-partum counselling? But to hear that they also don't care about children who are the victims of rape and incest, and to hear that they refer to services for those children as non-essential, is a measure of that government's cruelty. I don't think we should ever miss an opportunity to repeat that fact over and over again. For that minister to stand on the floor of this House and refer to that service as non-essential, and for the Chairman to rule, and the minister from Point Grey to say that I am out of order in bringing to the attention of the House that when that minister refers to a service as non-essential, what he's talking about and what he is saying is that it's okay, it means that this government says it's fine and has declared open season on kids. Rape them, beat them, abuse them, do what you want. That's what he says when he refers to that service as being non-essential. It may be out of order to mention it, Mr. Chairman, but I think that's a point that needs to be said.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, to get on with line (d) in this section, I want to raise this very carefully with the minister. When I read the original section it talked about firing without just cause. Then I get down to line (d) that says: "reduces the level of an activity or service of the employer, the public sector employer may terminate the employment of an employee in accordance with the regulations." Mr. Chairman, we have been given the regulations today — just this evening. I understand that the minister made them available to others earlier in the day, but not much earlier. How can we possibly debate this amendment without having had an opportunity to carefully review the regulations? I suspect that when we go through the regulations in juxtaposition with line (d) of this particular amendment we're going to find that you have in there exactly what you had before, and that is firing without cause.

The minister said we can debate, and that he will debate with us, the whole question of termination vis-à-vis laying off in section 2 of this bill. We're now at section 2, and we're talking in terms of the areas of reason for layoff — now it's not only layoff, it's termination. As a matter of fact, if I go through these four subsections of section 2, I wonder what in blazes the minister brought the bill in for in the first place. If insufficient work or insufficient funds or a change in organizational structure, and so on and so forth, were the key areas, you've already got it in your agreement.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Rubbish.

MR. COCKE: Come on! You have it in your agreement. You have over the years used your agreement. People have been laid off when there has been nothing for them to do, or

[ Page 2646 ]

whatever you deemed to be appropriate. Now, all of a sudden we whip around with words. In the first place you were honest. In the first place you came in with a bill that said exactly what you wanted to do: fire anybody you want, for any reason or no reason. Now you come in and skate around. But you place this section in juxtaposition with these regulations and I want to know if we aren't back to exactly where we were in the first place. Will the minister kindly give us his answer to that particular situation? No? That beautiful, honest creature. That minister who promised us that he would discuss and debate the whole question of termination vis-à-vis layoff will not now, on this section where he promised to debate the question, rise in his place and debate the very question that I'm putting to him. What's the matter?

MR. REYNOLDS: He's tired.

MR. COCKE: He's tired. Aw, is he really? And are you tired of listening to me too? Oh, well, then that makes it all worthwhile. As long as you're tired of listening to me, I know I'm on the right track.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'd like to say that the member's caucus staff must have been awfully slow in making the regulations available to their members, because the regulations were delivered to their caucus between 4:30 and 4:45 this afternoon. The member attempted to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm not going to say it's a clerical error like the $100 million mistake that Levi made and that Barrett said was a clerical mistake. I'll call it a typographical error. It's not a $100 million mistake like the one Levi made which was called a clerical mistake by Dave Barrett.

MR. COCKE: What about the multi-billion dollar mistake that you made?

HON. MR. CHABOT: One hundred million dollars! You used to shovel money out of the back of the truck like it was going out of style. That was the record of this government — three and one-third years. That was the sad record of that little socialist group over there.

MR. COCKE: Who's in debt right up to their ears? You are!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Could the hon. minister please direct his comments to the question that was posed?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. No wonder that in the last 31 years they've been elected only once, to serve three and one-third years — because of their dismal performance when they were government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member from Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I hope I'm wrong, but the ex-member that the minister referred to, Norman Levi.... I think the minister knows as well as I do that the name is Levi and not " Lee-vigh," and I just wonder whether the minister thinks it sounds a little more Jewish to say it as "Lee-vigh" rather than Levi?

AN HON. MEMBER: Racist!

MR. LEA: Yes, "racist" is right!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I don't really think that is a very justifiable point of order.

MR. LEA: Neither do I. I think it's a justifiable point of order, but I don't think it's a justifiable remark by that minister. Go to Alberta and get your ideas.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, can we please settle down and have a little decorum in this House and proceed with the debate. We're still dealing with the amendment to section 2(l), and the minister is going to continue.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, it's a pretty low comment coming from the member for Prince Rupert...

MR. LEA: It's a pretty accurate one, and you know it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: ...but it's something I would expect from the mudline over there from Prince Rupert. A pretty low comment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, you know better than that. Personal comments like that are entirely out of order and unacceptable in this House. Let's get on with the business at hand and forget about the personal recriminations back and forth.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, in response to the member for New Westminster, I think he is attempting to confuse termination and layoff. This particular amendment deals with the matter of termination and the circumstances under which termination will take place. It gives cause. It doesn't address the question of just cause. Just cause is a matter that is addressed in the collective agreement. People are dismissed for just cause, cause that is the fault of the individual. That is the just cause for dismissal. It is an economic cause that is defined in this particular legislation which brings about termination.

MR. COCKE: What a marvellous answer! What we were asking in the first place was why in the interpretation section we were asked to accept the minister's amendment which indicates that termination includes layoff. Then we get to a layoff section, and all I asked was, "Now tell us why it was necessary under these circumstances, where you said you would debate" this particular area, to include that word "termination" when "layoff" will do. And you know it, according to your own agreement. Beyond that, if you juxtapose these regulations with this section, I contend that we are coming right back to termination without cause.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's nonsense for the member to suggest it is layoff without cause, because those words which they found offensive when they were first introduced

[ Page 2647 ]

have now been removed. It's economic cause. It's clearly spelled out. The member attempts to muddy the water and confuse the issue, but wherever you read "termination" you can read "layoff, " because termination includes layoff.

[10:15]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister said this section is necessary because of the collective agreement, but under the schedule.... Well, it's been pretty well established that this affects some 250,000 public sector employees. This would include even the employees of the Duhamel Creek Water Improvement District. It is very wide ranging. It would include employees of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, and they are not a party to this agreement. It's unfortunate that closure was brought in on section 1 and I was not able to bring to the attention of the minister some of the parties included in the schedule referred to indirectly in section 1. That section is now passed. Now we are talking about not solving a problem that the minister might have because of his professed inability to pay, or because of the government point of view that certain programs are unnecessary or redundant, and many other types of expletives applied to programs which I see in a totally different light. If we were allowed to pick some of the programs that we would consider to be redundant and unnecessary frills, I think we would come up with a very different list. It certainly would not include some of the items referred to by my colleague from Burnaby–Edmonds. It would include other things, probably such as some of the advertising programs and so on of this government.

I want to ask the minister how he can justify applying a solution which casts such a wide net that he presumes to have a problem with — how many employees? How many employees are covered under the master agreement?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I don't know whether we are really discussing the master collective agreement of the BCGEU, but if you want a ballpark figure I'll say 38,000.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister says 38,000; I would agree with any figure in the neighbourhood of 40,000 people. We're talking, though, about a piece of legislation that's going to affect about a quarter of a million people. The minister has given us a rationale for this new amendment and said that the government is faced with problems with the collective agreement; that this particular collective agreement does have certain clauses in it, such as article 13, "Layoff and recall," which this government considers a problem. Now this government has applied this piece of legislation not just to that problem but to a quarter of a million employees in this province. I would like to know what the rationale is for applying it to all of these others, including water improvement districts.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member attempts to leave the impression that everyone in the public sector is going to be laid off and all these essential services that apply to the people of British Columbia will come to a halt. He is trying to suggest that it is going to have an impact on.... I heard a little earlier this afternoon that it's going to have an impact on 250,000 families in British Columbia, which is sheer nonsense. Everyone who works in the public sector of British Columbia isn't necessarily married with children, so it doesn't necessarily apply to 250,000 families. But you attempt to leave the impression that we're going to close all the prisons in British Columbia, and that we might close the hospitals and schools in British Columbia and gut every other program in the provincial government to reach those 250,000 people.

All we are saying essentially is that provincially we're attempting to cut back on expenditures because of a very serious downturn in revenue to the provincial government. We're attempting to trim certain government programs, which in turn addresses the question of positions, the number of positions in the public service that have to go. As far as the public sector beyond the realm of the public service is concerned, if further down — as you will come to in due course — there are layoff provisions contained within the collective agreement between those employers and their employees, then there is an exemption order. They can seek out and obtain an exemption order from the compensation stabilization commissioner. I am probably debating in advance a section that is to follow, but I guess I almost have to touch on it to respond to the question the member has raised.

Really, what I am saying is that many of the public sector employers in British Columbia will be exempt from this particular legislation. The BCGEU and other public service unions in the province, if they're prepared to accept in their collective agreements provisions that allow for the downsizing of government, can get an exemption from this legislation as well.

MR. NICOLSON: One is tempted to widen the scope of debate. I never suggested that the government is going to shut down all of the hospitals in the province, or all of the schools or jails in the province. I haven't suggested that they'll shut down any. Not today I haven't, at least.

The question that comes to mind is that the minister said there were problems with the collective agreement, and I suspect that this is the one they had in mind; now, casting this wide net, everyone else is caught in it. I'd like to ask the minister if to his knowledge there is any collective agreement between the British Columbia School Trustees' Association and any union.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, there is no collective agreement between the BCSTA and its employees. However, there are some senior managers in the BCSTA who I understand might be subject to certain sections of this legislation.

MR. NICOLSON: I thank the minister for his answer. Are there any employees of the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Authority, which is funded by the province and is a line item in the estimates of the province of British Columbia, who might be senior management personnel? Are they subject to the provisions of this bill? A line item in the estimates of the province...ever since it was created back in 1968 by a unanimous vote of the House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm trying to be helpful and get an answer for the member. Other members could quite easily be yacking while I'm looking. It appears that there are no further questions under this particular amendment, and therefore I will hold off for a minute and get the answer for the member.

MR. NICOLSON: It's the Creston Valley Wildlife Act. There is a vote in the Ministry of Environment under recreation and conservation, fisheries and wildlife. This province

[ Page 2648 ]

has been voting money to that authority for many years. How could it have been missed?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is it covered by the compensation stabilization program? It's not covered in our regulations. I don't want to mislead you with a answer, so I would have to determine first of all whether any employees other than public servants are involved.

MR. NICOLSON: All kinds of employees.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm not talking about volunteers. I'm talking about paid employees.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, there are.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Other than public servants?

MR. NICOLSON: Are these my estimates that I have to answer all these questions for the minister? I will take the question as notice.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to put forward the question I asked earlier. The minister said he would deal with the question about whether or not there was any difference in benefits accorded someone who was terminated, as compared to someone who was laid off. As I suggested, it might affect his status and the amount of his unemployment insurance, and the length of time he is able to collect it. I wonder if he has that reply now.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I attempted to get that information a little earlier in the evening and said that I would respond under this particular section, because this is where the reply really belongs. I am informed by my staff — I might say they attempted unsuccessfully to contact Manpower this evening — that where one is laid off, benefits do flow earlier than where you are dismissed with just cause. In other words, if the dismissal stems from your fault, there is a penalty applied to the individual. But I am informed that under the particular termination spelled out here, where it is not the individual's fault and where it is not for just cause but for economic causes as spelled out in the legislation, essentially the waiting period is the same as a laid-off employee's waiting period.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: He perhaps cannot give me an answer this evening, but in view of this, has the minister considered making the layoff notice explicit, in the sense that it would get around any problems that might be encountered because of its vagueness? Also, as I said earlier this evening, the definition of whether or not a person is eligible has to do with not only whether he's unemployed, but with not receiving any funds because he's unemployed. Any kind of severance package, as outlined in the regulations, could have a profound effect on this. There are a number of other implications to the regulations that we needn't get into now, but that's certainly one of them.

[10:30]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, needless to say, I'll pursue the matter further with Manpower, but I've given you my response: that my staff informs me there is no difference between a laid-off situation and the causes defined in this legislation, but there is a vast difference between just cause. It would be interesting to know what the experience has been in Manitoba under their legislation, which has the same terminology as this legislation — whether they have experienced any similar problems there. But I'm led to believe that there is no difference between a laid-off situation and a termination situation as spelled out under this legislation. Under both circumstances it's essentially not the responsibility — or I should say the fault — of the individual. There should be no additional waiting period. It's only where there is just cause. When an individual is dismissed under the terms and conditions of the collective agreement and has a direct responsibility, a direct fault, that's where the penalty is imposed, where the waiting period is longer.

MR. ROSE: I don't know whether that business reference to Manitoba was some sort of a crack or not, but that's not the point. The point is not whether it's just cause or unjust cause. A terminated employee is entitled to severance pay. There are provisions for that kind of severance pay in the regulations. If that person receives severance pay, he does not experience a loss of income due to unemployment until the severance pay runs out. Now that is the essential point I was trying to get at, but I give up. If we've....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Let me answer that. I don't know if you're fighting against severance pay or not. But my answer to you is that where an individual is terminated and qualifies for severance, if he doesn't seek work, or isn't able to get work elsewhere, then needless to say he would eventually qualify for UI. He must recognize that.

MR. ROSE: I do recognize it, Mr. Chairman, but the difference is that a laid-off employee is entitled to UI immediately, or within two weeks, whereas a person receiving severance pay isn't. Your employees, Mr. Chairman, are going to be asked to make choices as to whether or not they intend to stay on a layoff list or whether they intend to accept the generous severance offers of the government. That is the point I'm trying to make. However, I give up on that one as well.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, this is the problem with hastily thrown together legislation. What's going to happen — and this is under "Right to recall" — is that some are going to opt for right to recall, so they are not going to get their severance package, I wouldn't imagine — or are they going to get it anyway? If they're not going to get their severance package, then they can go on to Unemployment Insurance for a while. Then they can opt and say: "I don't want to be on the recall thing any more. It's running out. I'll get my severance pay; I have been drawing unemployment insurance."

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, that's wrong.

MR. LEA: It's not clear and this is the problem with hastily, I repeat.... This is going to go through the whole of government and we're going to have a really big shemozzle. Every piece of legislation that's come in has been hastily thrown together and there are going to be effects because of that.

[ Page 2649 ]

It's pretty hard to discuss this amendment without going to the regulations that the minister provided to us. I would imagine the minister supplied them to us for the arguments that would come up under this section. Under "Right to recall," 6(l) says: "An employee whose employment is terminated or who is laid off under the act may, instead of receiving compensation, elect to have his name placed on a recall-to-employment list." That means the person can go down and collect unemployment insurance, I would think — if the minister's interpretation is right that there is no difference between being terminated or laid off because of economic reasons; that it doesn't make any difference. I'm willing to buy that. It seems to make sense, although dealing with federal legislation may not make sense when you get there. It seems to me that this sort of thing should have been checked out.

Now we're going to complicate it even further by having a number of different categories of people who are terminated or laid off. It's going to be compounded by these regulations that have been hastily thrown together to meet the concerns of the public. Section 6(2) says: "An employee who wishes to be placed on a recall list shall make his election within 30 days of the effective date of the termination of his employment." As I understand it, if this bill goes through, the effective date is going to be the end of October. Is it 30 days prior, or 30 days after? You're not going to have that opportunity if it is 30 days after. So what's going to happen? Somebody will say: "Okay, for 30 days I don't know what I'm going to do, and I'm going to take these 30 days to make up my mind. In the meantime, I think I'll just wander down and apply for unemployment insurance." At the end of that time, he makes his final decision.

Mr. Chairman, this is going to be a nightmare. There are going to be as many staff hired to sort this out as are getting laid off. That's what is going to happen. To prove it, I can tell you that just to shut down the B.C. Systems Corporation they are now seconding people back into all the departments to make sure that it is shut down properly. It's the craziest dammed package of nonsense that ever came through. This legislation, Mr. Chairman, is not designed to do a job; it's designed to meet what was considered to be a political call. It's going to happen time after time after time.

The government can't have it both ways. First of all, they said this legislation wasn't drawn up before the election so they couldn't tell anybody about it. They say it was all drawn up after the election. We know how hastily it was thrown together. If the government had just taken its time to put its legislation together in a forthright and administratively acceptable way we wouldn't be running into all of these problems. Even if we were to roll over, fall down and say, "Government, have your way; whatever you want you've got it," they've got trouble.

They've got trouble with this section. When you take a look at this section and the regulations and all of the things that employees are going to have to go through, it is going to be the darndest mess that you ever saw in your life. We haven't even seen the beginning of it yet. It is going to be chaos out there. I ask the minister: are there going to be people placed at the disposal of people laid off or terminated to help them get through this maze of regulations? Is there going to be some counselling for these people?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, there will be people in every ministry of government ready and willing to assist anyone who has any difficulty with regulations which I feel are fairly clear-cut. They are not as complicated and convoluted as the member for Prince Rupert attempts to suggest. He suggests the regulations are very confusing — they're not. I don't know if this is the appropriate section to discuss the regulations, Mr. Chairman. It's only as a courtesy that I make....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe they're mentioned in this amendment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Fine. But what we're saying is that after 30 days of an individual being given notice of termination — October 31, 20 days away from now — an individual would have 50 days from today to make an election as to which he wishes to accept. Whether they're prepared to take the very generous severance compensation package we've put together here for them, or whether they're prepared to accept the recall option which is in place, they have that 30-day period from October 31 to elect which they're going to accept. It's entirely up to the individual. We're giving them those options. Don't you think it's right to give individuals these kinds of options and to make available to them the kind of generous severance package that has been put in place? If an individual accepts termination and the generous compensation package we've put together, then if he has reached a certain age in life and a certain number of years of service in the public service he has the opportunity of gaining additional benefits for early retirement as well.

It's a good package. It's one which looks after the fact that some of the public servants of British Columbia are losing job security — not all of them. When you take job security away you have a responsibility to be fair. We're saying that for those who will be terminated in the public service between October 31, 1983, and October 31, 1984, for that 12-month time-frame we are providing that generous package for those who are terminated because of economic reasons in the province. It's an excellent package. It's one that has been closely examined and has taken into consideration the plight of those who are being terminated in the public service who are losing job security. Under those circumstances, during the hiatus, there's a responsibility to be generous.

MR. LEA: The minister asks me whether I think it's fair. It's really difficult to tell whether it's fair or unfair. I don't think it is fair, because it is too confusing. People are going to be confused, and I think there is going to be a lot of chaos out of it.

I'd like to ask the minister whether he sees it as being fair or not. It's my understanding that there is a woman who worked 19 years in the Ministry of Transportation who, in order to gain promotion, applied for a job within the rentalsman's office. She received the job. She is now going to be either laid off or terminated at the end of October.

There are people working in the Ministry of Transportation who possibly have, let's say for argument's sake, five years of seniority who are going to keep their job. I'd like to ask the minister whether he considers that to be fair.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, my answer is that seniority will be taken into consideration under the regulations.

MR. LEA: Could the minister point that out to me under the regulations? I don't see it under the regulations.

[ Page 2650 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, we're here to discuss the amendment before us, not to discuss the regulations. But I think....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister is still addressing the committee.

[10:45]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Burnaby–Edmonds (Ms. Brown) will come to order. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) will take his place. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) will maintain order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On page 3, subsection (5), it says: "Where the employer considers that the ability, skills and qualifications of two or more persons having existing recall rights are equal, the employer shall hire the former employee who, at the time of his layoff, possessed the greatest service seniority."

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, we're not talking about recall; we're talking about the original termination. Because the minister asked me if I thought something was fair, I think it's only fair that I ask him about something and see whether it's fair. Why would the government under this termination, under clause 2 of this act, say to this woman, "You have 19 years in" — more than that, it was 19 with the Ministry of Transportation and a couple more, so we're looking at about 21 years.... Why would the government consider it fair to terminate people with no regard to seniority? The government has said that they are only trying to bring things into line with the private sector. Personally, I have never heard where this has happened in the private sector.

There are departmental seniorities that take place, too, in the plant. Plant seniority will override departmental seniority. Bumping goes on. What happens to this woman is that she is finished — there's no bumping. She is going to have some right of recall that somebody with less seniority doesn't have, but she should never be put in that position in the first place. Surely a woman with 21 years with the government of British Columbia should have more right to a job than someone with five years, regardless of which department they work in, whether it's the rentalsman's office or the Ministry of Transportation, but that is not the case. People with lots of seniority are going to be terminated. They do exactly the same kind of work as someone who is going to keep their job in some other department, some other ministry or some other program. I'm asking the minister: does he think that is fair?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, in reading the provisions of the application for seniority, it says:

"In determining which employee(s) shall be laid off or terminated, the employee shall consider (a) the requirements and efficiency of operation of the employer, and the skill, ability and qualifications of each employee concerned; and (b) the service seniority of each employee concerned.

"(3) Where subsection (2)(a) is to all intents and purposes equal as between two or more employees, the employee having the least service seniority shall be the first to be laid off or to have his employment terminated."

So there is the application of seniority under the regulations.

The member asked me whether the situation he raises is fair or unfair. It's my understanding that there are going to be some positions posted for which that individual will have an opportunity of applying.

The issue of redeployment is being addressed in her particular situation, but you must remember that the BCGEU has expressed extreme opposition to redeployment. They have told their employees not to consider accepting redeployment. So I'm wondering whether you think that is fair on the part of the BCGEU and its members.

MR. LEA: First of all, I understand that the union's position is on relocation, not redeployment.

The minister knows which woman I am referring to because he knows the case. But I am sure there all sorts of cases that haven't hit the papers. It's happening throughout the civil service. Many people have good service records and have been good employees; the only reason they're being laid off is that the government says that a program is ending and that they're short of funds. They're being laid off for economic reasons. The minister is saying: "Yes, this person and other persons like her are going to be laid off, but their seniority counts a little bit when it comes to recall — but not necessarily." Basically, this is a mess and it's not fair.

The minister wants to know what I consider to be fair. Look at what he means by redeployment. The union is against that — that there would be no bumping for seniority — and I would consider that to be unfair. I'd consider it to be unfair. I think that the government, the Legislature, has some obligation to be fair. It is not fair to take a person with all sorts of seniority and a good work record and say "you're through," and someone else who has not as much seniority does a job that this other person can do, and we say: "No dice. It's going to be by program and not by seniority." I really believe that this could have been resolved without this legislation, without demonstrations on the lawn; it could have been resolved by sitting down with the union and saying: "Let's work out a layoff plan that's fair, based on seniority." Once the union knew it was the writing on the wall, that it was going to happen, the union would have sat down and talked about this. Everybody knows that. You don't run your head against a brick wall and hope that it feels good when you quit.

Lastly, I'd like to say that none of this — this whole mess, this whole disruption in society, everything that's going on, Solidarity — would have happened or been necessary if the government had decided to do things in an orderly administrative way instead of trying to ride out what they consider to be a popular thing in the polls and hastily throwing together all this legislation that doesn't even stand administrative tests — never mind fairness.

MR. ROSE: On the same line, Mr. Chairman, but not necessarily on the same subject, it seems to me that what we have to realize here — and I understand it better now — the section 1 interpretation of "layoffs" and "terminations" means the same thing for when you move down into section 2, you find that what you have here is layoff reasons for termination. That was a point made earlier by my brilliant friend from Burnaby–Edmonds (Ms. Brown). What really bothers me — and I suppose this is my first question, or

[ Page 2651 ]

essential question; maybe it's even my only question — is that "without cause" has been removed. There have been layoff causes substituted, really, for termination clauses when the government, on a political decision, holds all the aces. No one can control a government priority that says: "We want to spend money, let's say, for highway maintenance, but we don't want to spend it for family maintenance." If I were a public employee and if I had the choice to make, had I known down the road, I might well have gone into the Highways ministry rather than become a member of the child abuse team, because now I'm terminated. If seniority has no meaning across different groups, but only within the group, then I do not have a great deal of protection offered me.

What I'm really saying is that the government decides whether there will be, as here, insufficient work or insufficient current operating funds budgeted to maintain the current levels of employment. These are really things that are determined by the government itself. For instance, we have decided that there will be no work or funds for painting of government buildings. That's a decision of the government. They can decide to fund that or the rape relief centres, or not decide to spend. So you see, these reasons are not the same reasons that apply, perhaps, in the private sector. I know what's behind all this. I think most of the members of the government would agree with this quote here: "We cannot squander ourselves into prosperity." Most would agree, and so would Herbert Hoover, who said it in 1932. But the point that I think is essential to get around here is that this gets around any other agreements — the Labour Code, collective agreements, the Labour Relations Act — and so what the government has done is thrown aside all the previous commitments over a great number of years on the grounds that it wants to downsize government, but it wants to downsize....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Oh, are you back? Oh, welcome to the House.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, are we not on the amendment? As I understand the amendment on the order paper, it's very narrow. I would think, in listening to the debate of that member, that we're definitely straying back into second reading debate of this bill.

MS. BROWN: On that point of order, I would just like to bring to that member's attention that the amendment is two pages long. It's not narrow at all. Maybe I should read it for him line by line. Smarten up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Withdraw, please. That remark is offensive.

MS. BROWN: Don't smarten up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, withdraw the remark unqualifiedly, thank you.

MS. BROWN: Don't be smart?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just withdraw, please.

MS. BROWN: I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. One moment, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just a point of clarification for the edification of the committee — and it's something that's been twigged by the member for Burnaby–Edmonds — we are on an amendment to section 2, and we are taking these one at a time, as is our custom with this new numbering system that we have. So we are currently discussing section 2(l) as it's listed in the order paper, and that's all. We don't have two pages of amendments. However, I will admit that since this section does mention regulations, it does broaden the scope. However, the member for Omineca does make a good point in that the member for Coquitlam–Moody is now embarking upon principle debate or debate that might have been carried on better in second reading.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, just on that same point that you're bringing up, the member for Burnaby–Edmonds mentioned that the amendments are over two pages long. Would it not be a lot easier for this committee if we were to consider section 2 as a section so that the members of the opposition and members of the government who are asking questions could ask them in a broad manner rather than go through...?

MR. LEA: Because it's easier to bring closure.

MS. BROWN: That member is so helpful.

MR. REYNOLDS: I just want to be helpful; the member for Burnaby–Edrnonds was already under the impression that we were doing it that way, obviously, because she mentioned that it was two pages long. I would think it would make a lot more sense in debate in this House.

The member mentions closure; we could bring in closure on every amendment. It doesn't seem to matter anyway. They want to just talk on in a frivolous manner. I think it would allow them the time and latitude to ask a lot of questions — some meaningful ones rather than just the filibuster we've been listening to.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Coquitlam–Moody continues.

MR. ROSE: Oh, I wondered if you had a ruling, Mr. Chairman.

I congratulate and welcome the member for Omineca in here. Perhaps he hadn't benefited by all the debate and where we were. Actually the amendment does cover two pages — the bottom of one and the top of another — but certainly there's enough in here to indicate support for the point that I was attempting to make, and if he reads the amendment he'll find that the reasons for termination, which are really layoff reasons, are for insufficient work, insufficient operating funds to maintain the current levels of employment and changes in the organizational structure of the employer. That means that it's again up to a decision of the government. He can do that. The government can decide to have a deputy foreman or a deputy minister or an associate deputy minister

[ Page 2652 ]

discontinue a program or activity or service of the employer and reduce the level of activity, shrink it or get rid of it altogether. The point here is that it is the government's decision, the government's priority, and as my hon. friend would probably say if he were standing on his feet, it's a political question, not an economic question. That is, I think, the essential point, and that's why we can't support it. It negates a lot of previous agreements, it uses euphemisms to fire somebody under the guise of a layoff, and we think that it really is termination without cause and just softens the blow a little bit by using means and language which perhaps gets away from the aggressiveness of "without cause" but substitutes the same thing, in effect, anyway.

MS. BROWN: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to find out whether this is it, because the title to this says "Draft Public Sector Restraint Act Regulations," and in the preamble it goes on to say: "We are continuing with the consultative process and would be pleased to receive further representations." So can we handle this as though this is it? Or is this just PR?

[11:00]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, really, these are draft regulations, and they were issued essentially as a courtesy to the public servants of the province and as a courtesy to members of the opposition so that they would have some idea as to what our intentions were as far as treatment of the public servants who are being terminated under the legislation. Really, it's a most unusual approach to make regulations available in advance, because regulations essentially do not become law until such time as the legislation itself becomes law. But as a courtesy to all concerned, to the people of British Columbia, we issued them as draft regulations so that people would be aware of our intentions.

MS. BROWN: Okay. I want to thank the minister, Mr. Chairman, for clarifying that what we're really debating here are not the regulations. This is a draft, and they're subject to change. As he stated in the preamble, the consultative process will continue, and he's still accepting representations. So they are subject to change.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Minor.

MS. BROWN: Minor, major, or whatever. I think it's fair that everyone should know this and I appreciate the minister putting that caveat in the preamble. His courtesy, of course, is appreciated, because we can't discuss the bill without knowing what the regulations are, because they are embodied in the bill.

In section 2(l)(c), where it talks about the discontinuation of programs, Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague from Prince Rupert raised one anomaly there. I'd like to raise another one. When an entire program has been wiped out, and the workers in that program received.... I don't know whether it can be called a layoff notice or what it is, but they were told that they weren't fired. They were to stand by the telephone just in case something happened. So we don't know whether it was termination or layoff. The only thing we know is that the program has disappeared. What options do they have, when it says here in terms of implementation that service seniority is determined within a unit. When the units disappear, what happens to those workers and what happens to their seniority? That's my first question.

My second question, Mr. Chairman, has to do with this offer of 30 days. If within 30 days an employee decides to go with this option of hanging in there for a period of 12 months just in case an opening comes up and she can be recalled — and I use the pronoun "she" because most of the public sector workers are women, and I suspect that most of the ones being laid off are women; certainly that's the experience in Human Resources and even in the A-G's, too, in some instances — who pays her during that 12 months while she is hanging around waiting to find out whether she's going to be recalled or not? I know that according to these draft regulations their benefits are continued: pension, health, dental and life insurance. But during that 12-month period, when they have chosen not to be terminated but to be laid off, what are they paid? Do they get any money from anybody, or are they just at the mercy of UIC, or what happens to them? Because what happens, you see, Mr. Chairman, is that at the end of that 12 months, if there isn't an opening somewhere so that they can be rehired in their own job or whatever, then they are terminated. In other words, instead of collecting their two months' severance pay and whatever else goes into the severance package on October 31, they may find themselves on October 31, 1984, still without a job and at that time they pick up their severance pay and their pension packet and that kind of stuff. But during that 12-month period, what source of income is open to them?

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, I'd like to respond to the question and points you made about the majority of the people being terminated being female.

MS. BROWN: I said I didn't know; I said I suspected.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's incorrect. Fifty-three percent of those who have been given notices of intention of termination are male, and 47 percent are female.

When people are under recall rights, I don't know who you think should pay them. You know, they have essentially been laid off and they're sitting there under recall rights; or they could be terminated and have recall rights. But needless to say, under those circumstances, if they're going to be there for 12 months, they have sufficient service in the public service to qualify for UIC for some substantial period of time. They might be employed elsewhere as well, while they're under recall, providing they're readily available to go to a job whenever a job is available. So it's not the public purse that should be responsible for payment of people who are unemployed and waiting for recall privileges under the provincial government.

Seniority will be a matter to be taken into consideration either under recall or under layoff provisions; where skills and qualifications are equal, seniority shall prevail. So the individual with the highest seniority will be the individual to stay. As far as determining who will stay, of course, units will be determined by senior managers of the government. They will determine what an appropriate unit is, as to who will stay and, I guess, who won't stay, and to whom seniority will be of benefit — I guess in some instances it might not be a benefit. So those are the answers to your questions.

MS. BROWN: As I said further, we are discussing these draft regulations, which may, in fact, not end up being the

[ Page 2653 ]

regulations, but at least we're having some input — as the minister said, "notwithstanding" or whatever. If a person is terminated, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, on October 31, they can pick up their severance pay and their termination package. That person, if a job opens up later on, can be hired, even though that person is terminated. Is that correct, Mr. Minister? A terminated person can be rehired, can she not, Mr. Minister? Just nod, that's all I need. That means no and that means yes.

HON. MR. CHABOT: My imperishable words won't appear in Hansard under those circumstances. There you are, making your argument, and the minister is just sitting there shaking his head one way or the other. Now that doesn't make very good reading, does it? If you want to pose a series of questions to me, I will glad to respond to each and every question that you put to me, hopefully.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, what I need to know is: essentially who benefits under this layoff clause? If a person is terminated and collects their severance package, that person is eligible for a job if it opens up later on. At that time, is that person's seniority taken into account if a person opts to go for the layoff provision in 30 days? Then, if a job opens up and that person is rehired, is that person's seniority taken into account? However, if that person is not rehired within 12 months, at that time that person gets the same termination package that that person would have received a year earlier. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it appear to you that the only person who benefits, really, if one can refer to the government as a person, is the employer — the government, who is the employer? Because rather than being faced with 1,600 or 2,000 termination packages on October 31, through this ploy of layoffs, the government is able to sort of do some now and postpone paying out the rest of the severance pay, etc., to people a year from now. So isn't the employer, or the government, the real beneficiary of this particular regulation? Correct me if I'm wrong.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I will correct you, because you are wrong on the issue of an individual that is in the recall position being eligible for the severance package after the expiry of 12 months. That's incorrect. The individual has 30 days after notice of termination to opt for one or the other — to opt either for the severance package or for being placed on the recall list. So it's an option that one has to take. You can't have both. It's an option situation.

Another question that you posed was the question of an individual who accepts the severance package and leaves the public service with his or her lump sum settlement — or that can be paid out on a monthly basis as well. Would they have the right of coming in and having first option on some public service positions? The answer is no, because preferential treatment will be given to those people who are in the recall position.

MS. BROWN: The recalled person who, at the end of a maximum of 12 months, has not been recalled is then terminated. Are you saying that at the end of that period, that person does not get severance pay?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, that's correct.

MS. BROWN: Oh, so the person gets the package; so I was correct. So it's a matter of getting the package now or getting it a year from now.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, no, you're wrong.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, an employee who wishes to be placed on the recall list can stay on the recall list. That means that employee does not get severance pay; the pension benefits, health benefits, dental benefits and life insurance are carried on for a maximum of 12 months. If, at the end of that 12 months, a job has not been found for that employee, that employee then gets the severance packet, right? If, at the end of 12 months, that employee has not been recalled, then that employee is terminated, and at that time the employee then gets her severance packet. She doesn't get anything at the end of 12 months?

[11:15]

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, that's correct. I've already answered that one. I guess you want me to reassure you on that one. Maybe tomorrow sometime I'll explain the regulations to you.

The individual has a 30-day time-frame to elect either for the compensation package or to be placed on the recall list, and they can't have both. There's no way that they're going to be on the recall list for a period up to 12 months, and then at the expiry at that period of time still be entitled to the severance package or the compensation package. All I'm saying is that they are not both available. So where they are in the recall position, it's much like an employee who is laid off from a sawmill, who is subject to recall because of his seniority and previous experience with the company. If the sawmill never opens up, he's not recalled, and then that recall lapses. But there is no severance package at the end of that. So this is similar to that. The individual has the option of either accepting that generous compensation package or getting on the recall list. They're not getting both.

MS. BROWN: That's not a good offer.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, this is a general question to the minister. Looking at all these regulations that have been given to us, it becomes increasingly clear that you and your government, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, have really basically rewritten a collective agreement unilaterally.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not correct.

MRS. DAILLY: If that is not so, I would like the minister to tell us why it is not so, because my next question is: if you haven't, did you meet with the members of the union to work these out together? If you didn't, then obviously you've taken it upon yourself to do this unilaterally. If you have, my final question is: do you not think that this is an exceptionally bad sign of leadership that you are setting in the province of B.C. for labour-management relations?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's quite obvious that the member has been out of the House for the last little while. I don't know precisely when she came back, but I essentially answered the questions you have put to me before. Let me answer it while we're talking about this particular

[ Page 2654 ]

amendment — again, I guess. This amendment dealing with termination of employees is something that came into being because we wanted to remove those words "without cause," which people found offensive. So what we've done is we've looked at other provincial governments in Canada that have this kind of terminology contained within legislation that allows them to downsize the public service and to downsize the number of employees working for the provincial government. We found that this language that is contained within this amendment is in place in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. So there's nothing bewildering or strange about this. This is language we picked up which exists in other provinces of Canada. We've said that because of the need for cutting back on the expenditures of government, we'd better transport those imperishable words from those other provinces into British Columbia, and that's essentially what we've done.

The member talks about the consultative process. We've attempted to have a substantial degree of consultation right from the outset. I'm going to repeat it again — I said it a couple of hours ago — that as soon as the legislation was initially introduced, I immediately sent a telegram to the president of the B.C. Government Employees' Union as well as all other public service unions in British Columbia to come and meet with me to discuss this particular legislation, Bill 2 and Bill 3. It was an opportunity for them to have input. About six or seven representatives of trade unions came to meet with me. They were not really prepared to discuss any of the circumstances of the legislation or any amendments that they thought were necessary to the legislation. They came and read a brief which was about two or three pages long. They weren't even prepared to discuss the substance of their brief with me; they were anxious to leave. The meeting lasted about ten minutes in my office. It was an opportunity for them to express their displeasure with the legislation and to say that there would be no consultation.

I've consistently said, ever since the legislation has been in place, that my door is open to the public service unions. I've said publicly, on numerous occasions, that my door is open. They can come and meet with me to discuss it; I would hope they would, because the legislation does have an impact on those public service unions as well as its membership. Nevertheless, despite my overtures to them, they've been unwilling to do so. I've met with other union leaders in the province as well as with the secretary of the B.C. Federation of Labour. I've met with public sector employers groups as well as with the Employers' Council of B.C. to discuss the legislation. I have had a substantial amount of input; it's because of some of the input that there have been changes to this legislation. So it's not because of a desire on my part not to consult; it's because other parties out there weren't willing to consult with me.

Because of recommendations made to me by Art Kube, there have been some major changes to the language of the legislation. That's the kind of input I've been seeking from the public service unions, who have been so unwilling to meet with me and to attempt an accommodation of ways and means to change the legislation and make it more acceptable to them.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I was just reading the layoff provisions in the agreement. First of all, it says:

"In the event of layoff resulting from a decrease in the amount of work to be done...the employer shall notify regular employees who are to be laid off twenty (20) work days prior to the effective date of layoff. If the employee has not had the opportunity to work twenty (20) full days after notice of layoff, he or she shall be paid in lieu of work for that part of the twenty (20) days during which work was not made available."

Twenty days' notice is no big deal. This decision was arrived at through the process of collective bargaining. That's gone now; in its place we find what the minister refers to as a very generous offer, which really is a little bit like Loto Canada. It's a bit of a gamble. You gamble that sooner or later the job, which the minister now refers to as non-essential, is going to become essential and you'll get your job back. You say, "Okay, I'll kiss my termination package good-bye and take my chances on this happening," or else you gamble that your job isn't going to come back and you go with the two months' severance pay and the other kinds of termination things. As my colleague from Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) says, it's a unilateral agreement which this government is now imposing on the workers in the public sector.

Take the issue of seniority. I spoke earlier about it, as did the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). Clearly it says that seniority is determined within the unit in which a person works. Under the collective agreement, article 11.01 says: "Service seniority shall mean the length of continuous service as a regular employee in the public service of British Columbia." It doesn't say "only within your unit." In other words, take the example which the member for Prince Rupert raised about the woman who had worked 19 years in Transportation, and then was transferred for one or two years to the rentalsman's office. In effect she would have 21 years experience, but under these new draft regulations — it's not even the real thing that we are debating here — she loses that. All she has in terms of seniority are the two years she put in at the rentalsman's office.

The minister doesn't say what it is going to mean. It's a program which has been terminated under section 2(l)(c). It's a program that's been discontinued. There is no comparison between this and the way in which working people are treated when the employer and the worker sit down together and work out a collective agreement. Here, the employer by himself — in this instance the government, which the minister, in introducing second reading of this bill, referred to as a "unique employer" — sits down and draws up a list of rules and regulations to govern the way in which working people work. There's no comparison. It's totally unfair to deprive a person of 19 years of seniority, as happens under these regulations. Surely the minister must recognize that.

I for one am glad that these are draft regulations. I'm glad that in the preamble the minister has invited more consultation and further representations. That shows he's got an open mind and is willing to take some of these recommendations into account. Certainly the seniority section of the implementation of termination has to be taken into account; it really is grossly unfair the way it is written.

All kinds of workers have been terminated from programs which have disappeared. Thinking again of Human Resources, they got those letters saying they weren't really fired; they weren't really laid off; they were just a little bit redundant. "But hang around by the telephone and you may be redeployed." That whole program has disappeared. So what kind of seniority do those workers take into the area in which they are redeployed? Some of those workers had 10,

[ Page 2655 ]

15 or 20 years of experience with the ministry — some more than that. They are going to lose all of that; they're wiped out with the stroke of a pen if these regulations are adopted.

I see the silent assistant to the minister shaking his head. I'm hoping that means that section 3(5)(b) dealing with seniority is....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Where are we?

MS. BROWN: Page one. Talking about the criteria for seniority. I'm hoping that is going to be amended or changed, or that the interpretation is incorrect.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, no. Mr. Chairman, we're trying in peace and harmony to have some dialogue. This is a very important section of this act. It affects the lives of many people. For example, they learned today about the two deals offered to them: either they go with termination or they go with recall. In one they get their money and in the other they don't. They go on good luck or the other.

The second thing we're discussing now are the criteria for seniority. That is very important. There are a lot of years of work hanging on the decisions made by this section. Is the minister going to respond?

HON. MR. CHABOT: What's the question again? Press on. You want to spin your wheels anyway.

MS. BROWN: Seniority. I'm questioning the criteria for seniority.

[11:30]

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've explained it before. Seniority is there. On the question of who is to be terminated, it talks about seniority, qualifications and skills. Where qualifications and skills are equal, seniority will prevail. It talks about recall rights and the importance of seniority there. It will be determined by units.

I don't know what more we can do. We have given recognition to seniority, which is substantially more than is being done by many of the collective agreements in the province. For instance, I see here concerning retention of seniority during layoff that out of 51 collective agreements in the province covering 39,283 employees, 22.6 percent of those employees have no provisions for retention of seniority during layoffs. Also, retention of seniority during illness or injury: there is no provision in 119 collective agreements out there in the private sector covering 133,402 employees; 76.9 percent of those employees have no protection of seniority during illness or injury. Seniority on transfer from bargaining units: no provision in 124 agreements covering 132,648 employees; 76.5 percent of those employees have no seniority on transfer from bargaining units. Preferential seniority on layoffs etc.: no provision in 141 collective agreements in the private sector covering 134,840 employees, or 77.7 percent of them. We give a lot of consideration to seniority in comparison to some of the collective agreements that are out there in the private sector. On the question of layoff and notices that we give to the public service, for instance: in the private sector collective agreements, there is no provision for notice of layoff or pay in lieu of notice in 90 collective agreements covering 107,528 employees. There are no provisions for more than 24 hours' notice of layoff in 184 collective agreements that I'm talking about here covering 173,483 employees. So I think we are very considerate when we give the kind of notice that we give here in British Columbia.

MS. BROWN: I can list off a number of other areas in which the public sector collective agreement is the leader in the field. Of course the government is a unique employer. It has always been. Not only that, it has to be a better employer than most others. There are all kinds of protections that were pioneered by the public sector workers. Women in particular can list a number of things which started either at the municipal, provincial or federal level for public sector workers. That's part of its role. That's precisely why we are so opposed to the downgrading of the public sector agreement: we recognize that this is going to be reflected in the private sector.

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think you've been most generous in allowing a fair amount of latitude on this amendment. I think most of us in the House have also done so. The hon. member for Burnaby–Edmonds, I would respectfully suggest, is digressing well beyond the principle of this amendment. I do not know how she could possibly suggest that that is relevant to the principle of this amendment. Pursuant to standing order 43, I'd ask you to rein her in.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, I was bored to death while I listened to the minister reading out all sorts of statistics that had absolutely nothing to do with this section, so what the blazes is he talking about?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair must observe that a lot of the debate that has transpired lately — and earlier — really is principle debate and would be better applied to second reading. We are on a very specific amendment which is before us, and I am sure we can make our remarks strictly relevant to that amendment.

MS. BROWN: For the benefit of that member who rose to his feet prior to the member for New Westminster, I want to read the section of the amendment to which I am addressing myself. It says: "...the public sector employer may terminate the employment of an employee in accordance with the regulations." I'm discussing one section of the regulations which is in accordance with what the employer may use to terminate the employment of the employee. I am being very clear and very limited. However, the minister, in responding to me, pointed out that the draft regulations, which we have before us, in some of their sections are more generous than in many of the collective agreements of the private sector. I am pointing out to him that that is not the issue which we are debating, because in fact it has always been the role and the responsibility — and one of the rights and privileges — of the public sector unions and public sector employers to pioneer in the field, to take the risks, to set the example that the private sector should follow. With that in account, I again want to express some dismay and disappointment, in that when he is talking about the criteria used in determining seniority, it says in section 3(5)(b) that service seniority shall be determined within the units. This is quite different from the collective agreement which was arrived at in October 1982. It's on page 26, article 11.01. It says that "service

[ Page 2656 ]

seniority shall mean the length of continuous service as a regular employee in the public service of British Columbia." It goes on to break it down in terms of part-time and temporary employees. That's a better section than the one in the regulations.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's the same thing.

MS. BROWN: I'm going to read it, Mr. Chairman, and you tell me whether it's the same thing.

"Regular employees in the public service of British Columbia, as of June 30, 1974, shall be credited with service seniority equivalent to their length of continuous service as a permanent employee, or their length of service as a continuous temporary employee with the employer prior to that date."

What this Section in the regulations says is that service seniority shall be determined within the unit. It talks about the employer designating units of employees under section 3(3)(a) of the act. I am saying that the example which was raised by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), where a person with 19 years of experience or seniority in the transport ministry was then transferred....

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, that's got to be the fifth or sixth time that I have heard that member and others in this chamber refer to that exact situation. If that isn't repetitious, Mr. Chairman, it's absolutely tedious. I would ask that you bring that member to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That point of order is well taken, and you are absolutely right. The members may not persist in tedious and repetitive arguments, either of their own or of arguments made by other members. I will now ask the member now speaking to introduce new material or discontinue her speech.

MS. BROWN: All that the government has to do is to ask once, and I'm going to back down because I know when I'm defeated. So I'm not going to fight with the government over that. I don't want them to move closure till all of my colleagues have had an opportunity to raise issues that they want to raise. So as far as intimidation goes, I'm intimidated. They don't have to worry me fighting back. I don't ever intend to do that.

I'm not using that example. I can use a number of others. But seniority does not cross units as it is now laid out in the regulations. I think that seniority is important to working people. It may not be important to elected members, but it is sufficiently important to working people that we should at least give it some serious attention. I am sorry if the member for Omineca thinks that discussing seniority of working people is tedious.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member talks about the importance of seniority, and I might say that the regulations address that importance. She also talks about the collective agreement on page 26. She is enthralled with the seniority provision contained within article 11, and I might say that all she has to do is look at the interpretation of our regulations and she'll see that the interpretation of our regulations is precisely, or almost precisely, the same language as is contained in the collective agreement. So there is essentially no difference in the definition of service seniority.

MR. REYNOLDS: I rise to say I support this amendment. Listening to the member for Burnaby–Edmonds, who has been very repetitious and has had close to three hours on this amendment — and there are many more in this bill — I would move that the question be now put.

[11:45]

Question approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 12

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is: shall the amendment to section 2(l) pass?

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 13

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move section 2(2) standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

[ Page 2657 ]

MR. GABELMANN: There are two ways we can do this, as I understand it. We can do the amendments in the order that the minister prepares them, or we can do them in numerical order. I am still on subsection (1) of section 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that amendment has been passed.

MR. GABELMANN: As I understand it, you can move an amendment, Mr. Chairman, and even if the amendment deletes the whole previous proposal, you still have to vote on the main motion. We're doing it subsection by subsection. In that event, wouldn't you prefer that we dealt with subsection (1) in its entirety prior to dealing with subsection (2)? If there are further amendments to section 2(l), it makes more sense that we deal with those before we deal with subsection (2). Right?

I want to move an amendment to section 2, which, coincidentally, amends subsection 1, which has been amended and is included in section 2. In the first words of subsection (1) where it now reads: "Notwithstanding the Labour Code...." I want to substitute the word "notwithstanding" with "in accordance with."

[12:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the member please continue his remarks. The Chair, without prejudice, will consider the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: The intent of this amendment is, I think, clear. Section 2 says that the subject of termination of the employees will not be governed in any way by the Labour Code or the Public Service Labour Relations Act. We're arguing that by substituting these words "in accordance with" the code and the act, terminations would take place in the public sector in the same way as they now take place in the private sector. One of the arguments that the government has made continuously since July 7 has been — and the Premier has made this argument — that what it requires and desires of public sector employees is that they be treated in the same fashion as private sector employees. We're attempting to give meaning to the Premier's words and to make the legislation reflect what he argues it does reflect.

I would acknowledge that this is a departure from tradition in British Columbia, where there have been different rules applied for employees working directly for the Crown — not indirectly, but directly. Some of us who take the position that I'm taking are saying that we acknowledge that these workers are like any other workers and should be treated the same way as any other workers. Whether it's the profitability of the private company or the viability of the government of the day in terms of its potential to generate revenue, the workers should be treated according to the economic facts of the day. We have come some distance on that position. I think, in fact, that we reflect by our amendments — and this amendment in particular does that — the policy that has been proposed and enunciated and argued not only by the Premier but by his colleagues.

If we're going to treat public workers in the way we treat private workers, then let's let the Labour Code govern their affairs. In this respect, in terms of termination, let the provisions of the Labour Code, and as long as it's in place, the Public Service Labour Relations Act, govern termination. What could be fairer than that?

I don't intend to take a considerable amount of time in this discussion in advocating this particular amendment. I acknowledge that if it were to succeed it would require other amendments be put into place to be what we think is a fair approach. One of the things that bothers me about this whole debate on so-called restraint as it applies to trimming the public service, which is not a debate about restraint at all, is that it has not been a debate that could be characterized as being one that has been entirely honest. When you say to workers in this province, as this language does if our amendment isn't accepted, that the rights under the Labour Code regarding termination and the rights of a collective agreement under the Public Service Labour Relations Act, fairly and honestly negotiated, no longer apply simply because you work for the government, you fly square in the face of the arguments that the government is making — that public sector workers must be treated the same way those in the private sector are. There isn't a private sector worker in the unionized workforce in North Island, or anywhere else in this province, for that matter, who doesn't have the right to be terminated under the provisions of the Labour Code or their collective agreement negotiated under that Labour Code.

When a worker is terminated at Elk Falls pulp mill, that worker is terminated for just cause. When that worker at Elk Falls is laid off that worker is laid off because there isn't enough work to do at that particular time, and he or she is laid off because they are low on the seniority list. Sometime later when the market improves and their turn comes up, they are hired back. I assume that the debate has carried on for some time now over that essential point. It is obviously a debate that can't take place forever, and I don't propose that it does. But there is an essential dishonesty in the public pronouncements emanating from the other side of the House that suggest somehow that what this legislation and the accompanying regulations and Bill 2 simply do is make public sector workers the same as private sector workers. It's not true.

[12:15]

I guess the first mistake was made when we were government. My colleagues may not agree with me, but the first mistake may well have been enacting a separate piece of legislation for public sector workers to begin with. Maybe we should have acknowledged then that every worker in this province has a right to be covered under the Labour Code — period. It certainly would have been a lot simpler and a lot more fair, but I don't expect all my colleagues to agree with that. That's a view, as Ernie Hall will tell you, that I had at the time.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is simple; it calls only for equity. It calls only for the treatment of public sector workers to be the same as private sector workers — that is, with the full provision of the law as reflected through their collective agreement negotiated under the Labour Code of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, with respect to the motion proposed by the hon. member for North Island, the Chair must rule that the amendment is out of order in that it is inconsistent with the words in the motion which have already been agreed to. I so rule.

MR. GABELMANN: I challenge that ruling.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 2658 ]

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

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 8

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

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

On section 2 as amended.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper — namely section 2(2).

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment to 2(l). We had discussions with the Clerk, and it could facilitate....

The amendment to 2(l) is to delete lines 10 and 11 and substitute: "The public sector employer may lay off an employee in accordance with a collective agreement or a contract of employment." I so move.

[12:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will advise the hon. first member for Victoria that the words he has proposed on lines 10 and 11 on the amendment before us are clearly inconsistent with the words in the motion, which have already been agreed to. I therefore find that the amendment is out of order.

MR. HANSON: I challenge your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 8

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

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

On section 2 as amended.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the section standing in my name on the order paper, namely section 2(2).

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, we would like to propose a further amendment to section 2(3), in which we propose to delete in line 2 the words "notwithstanding any provision of a collective agreement" and in line 7 to delete the words "subsection 1 or the regulation, as the case may be" and substitute "the provisions of the collective agreement." I so move.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're not there yet, hon. member.

Would you like to consider section 2(2) passed?

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move section 2(3) standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will have to call the question on....

Shall section 2 as contained on page 21 — section (2.1) underneath section 2(-) pass?

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, it is all right that the trains run on time, but let's not get them running too fast here.

As I understand it, we just passed an amendment proposed by the minister on section 2(2). That was dealt with. He then moved that section 2 be amended by adding the following subsection (2.1)....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. That's the Section immediately following the section we've just passed. So that's where we are now.

MR. GABELMANN: This is now up for debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. GABELMANN: I might say this to both the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) and to the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom): it is dreadfully confusing when you have (2.1) here and also have 2.1 in an entirely different section of the amendments.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I agree.

MR. GABELMANN: Right. We all agree on that. That's about the only thing tonight.

[ Page 2659 ]

We are clear where we are. We are now able to debate the amendment proposed by the minister, which is (2.1) as opposed to 2.1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct, hon. member.

[12:45]

MR. GABELMANN: My understanding of this proposed amendment is to allow the minister or the Crown to fire people retroactively.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not true.

MR. GABELMANN: Have I misread that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. GABELMANN: "A notice of termination may be given under subsection (1) before the termination or expiry of the collective agreement if the termination is....

Why don't you explain it? Maybe we could do it in 30 seconds.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a very simple one.

MR. GABELMANN: A few thousand well-chosen words.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, no, I'll be very brief. Essentially it allows giving the notice of termination to an individual but it doesn't affect the timing of the termination. What we are saying here is that we are not attempting to interfere with the collective agreement by terminating someone before the expiry of the collective agreement, but it essentially says that we have the authority to give that notice of termination. That doesn't mean that individual is going to be retroactively severed or retroactively terminated under this particular section. It just says that the authorization for the issuance of notice of termination prior to the expiry of the collective agreement is applicable. It is not retroactive, because the termination does not take effect until such time as the collective agreement has expired.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, a collective agreement under either a continuation clause or arbitrations that have been settled in this province over the years.... I refer specifically to Hydro v. the Office and Technical Employees, 1976, I believe — off the top of my head — which makes it clear that collective agreements don't terminate. Collective agreements remain in force beyond the date of expiry, as witness the Hospital Employees' Union, who have a contract that is now 22 months expired, and the forest workers in the IWA whose contract has been expired since June 15. So what we are talking about is not contracts expiring. They don't expire. They come due for renewal and they remain in place....

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's right.

MR. GABELMANN: We agree, we agree. But the minister persists not only in the legislation but also in all of his public pronouncements: "on the date of the termination or expiry of the agreement." The agreement doesn't expire.

I haven't had the opportunity to sit in during in all of the many dozens — I was going to say hundreds but dozens is safe; hundreds is probably safe — of hours of legal advice that the government has been given since July 7 about the implications of what was done, particularly with respect to those employees who were served with a termination notice under non-existent legislation and what would be the legal implications on October 31. I don't intend to canvass all of those issues here now, because I wouldn't be in order, but clearly this is an attempt, as I see it, to avoid one of the messiest legal situations the Crown has ever faced in this province.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Slight! We'll rack our memories and see whether we can come up with any other legal entanglements that the Crown might have been involved in over the decades that rival what you face with this one.

What we are doing with this amendment is attempting to bail the government out of an ill-considered decision sometime prior to July 7 which led to termination notices being issued in various branches of government on the days following the introduction of that legislation — Human Rights and MHR and others. This section is an attempt to get out of that legal entanglement. But I'm not sure that the government has succeeded. I'm certainly not a lawyer, as everybody in this place knows — and thank God for that — but I suspect that you've still got some hurdles to overcome. I'd be interested to know what the minister's reaction is to my comment that collective agreements may come due for renegotiation but don't expire.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I guess it is a question of words. Collective agreements essentially do come to an end. The collective agreement which the BCGEU has with the government essentially expires on October 31, but the terms and conditions contained within that collective agreement do not necessarily expire. That's the purpose of negotiations. That's why there's the sanctity of the contract which is in place, which you must respect and which this legislation respects. But then it must be renegotiated, because that's the opportunity after October 31. That's the expiry date of this collective agreement. I think that's a term that's used frequently in the labour relations field — the question of termination of the collective agreement. But there is that understanding that the terms and conditions of the collective agreement continue.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, there's a real temptation in a debate of this order to deal with it lightly, and I must say I am occasionally tempted to deal in kind. But we're dealing with a very serious issue here, and I must restrain myself and not be light about something that is really very serious. What the government is saying is that it has chosen the day the collective agreement comes up for renewal as the day on which the provisions of the collective agreement in this respect no longer apply. That's a brand-new principle in this province.

I think before we pass lightly over this amendment we should consider what we're doing. We're changing the body of labour law as has been upheld in every possible way, including arbitration board decisions which have not been

[ Page 2660 ]

challenged. It's the thin edge of the wedge. I guess I've seen so many thin edges of the wedge which I have been prepared to let go because, well, it's not so bad by itself, in principle: although the impact of this is bad, perhaps the principle isn't so bad in a narrow application. Once you adopt that kind of principle, it's wide open. Who's to say next that the Hospital Employees' Union in the public sector shouldn't have all of the provisions of its contract cover the workers, simply because it has been expired for almost 22 months now? Or for the members of the CPU and the PPWC, whose contract has been expired since the first of June?

The contract may be expired, but the provisions in it don't expire. So what's magic about October 31? What advice does the government have from its lawyers that suggests that 30 days after July 7 is not as good a day as October 31 for termination, if they're so determined to go through with this kind of legislation?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Respect for the collective agreement! I'm a little bit taken aback; it's hard to find words to respond to that particular allegation. There is no respect for the collective agreement in this whole process. If there was respect for the collective agreement, there would also then be respect for the process that leads to a collective agreement and to the renewal of a collective agreement, and there would be some respect for the government's agents in bargaining and an expectation that they would be able to gain at the bargaining table some of the things the government requires.

All this section really does — it's quite simple, and I have strayed a little bit and will come back to it specifically, before the Chairman brings me back — is attempt to bail the government out of horrendous legal problems that it got itself into as a result of people being terminated, even though they weren't let go, during July. I guess most of it happened in July, and the effect was to be October 31. Mr. Chairman, I make a prediction right now: this section won't bail them out of those legal problems. And I don't say that with much glee.

I was going to say that I don't like what's happening in terms of the thrust of the legislation; I despise what's happening. I think it's absolutely wrong-minded in every respect. And I'm perhaps treating somewhat lightly this attempt to try to deal with the legal implications of decisions that were made a bit carelessly. But this isn't going to do it, and I'll make that prediction right now. We — that is, the government, the Legislature, the people who are supposed to make laws in this province — will find that this law will not stand up to any test in the court process. And that really has a dreadful impact on people's lives and a bad impact on this Legislature.

If there ever was a compelling argument for doing this in a careful way in a committee, where we can get expert advice, so we can listen to the lawyers and the other advisers who present their arguments to you and we can listen to others who may have a contrary view, and we can take that reasoned opinion and see whether we can improve the legislation, which should be the role of this House and usually isn't.... But it's clear why it isn't; we don't have that opportunity. I'll leave it at this: this is not the end of these legal problems.

MR. MACDONALD: In support of what the member for North Island has said, the government is trying to tear up a contract that expires on October 31. I don't think the member referred to section 2(4), but that's the additional attempt to say there's no contract after October 31 and to make these retroactive notices effective. I agree with the hon. member; I don't think it's going to work. Why, out of spite, you picked out certain of the public sector employees who are working for the government of British Columbia and gave them that notice last July, when they were covered by a contract.... I ask the minister: do you believe in breaking contracts? Why couldn't you wait until the agreement expired? Or if you're going to pass even something like subsection 2(4), why wouldn't you wait? What was the hurry to get rid of these people?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, but that's part of what we're talking about now. You're trying to make this retroactive firing legal, and it was done in spite, for ideological reasons. It's a right-wing thing, and you took your orders from somewhere — I don't know where you took them from; the Fraser Institute or somewhere — and you gave notices last July to people who had employment security subject to layoff in the normal course under the agreement. It's totally illegal. At this time we're supposed to be making it retroactively legal so that the notices and terminations are all right and these people are away on October 31. What you're doing is tearing up contracts. I think that should be clearly understood, Mr. Chairman, by the committee: that we're retroactively here, with a.... I don't think it's going to work, because I think a judge will look very closely at what you've been doing under this kind of legislation. But you've been jumping around trying to put your finger in the dike here and there to prevent a lawsuit or a proper grievance under the agreement, and....

But why would you fire people last July? Why couldn't you at least wait until the expiration of the thing before those notices were given? Why couldn't they be laid off under the collective agreement, if the people are not needed? Are they needed? If they're needed, they're not subject to layoff, and if they're not needed, they are subject to layoff, in accordance with the rules of natural justice and the layoff provisions of the government agreement. You're tearing up contracts in the middle of the night. That's what we're here to do, and it should be clearly understood that this is a totally unnecessary interference with the rights of contract as they apply to employment security in the public service of British Columbia. If you do that on this bill, what can people expect in the future? Sanctity of contract goes out the window at 1:00 o'clock in the morning of October 12.

[1:00]

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

[ Page 2661 ]

NAYS — 7

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 2(3) standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the amendment to section 2(3) says that these powers of termination shall apply "notwithstanding any provision of a collective agreement." Well, that seems simple enough. Notwithstanding the terms of any collective agreement: so we've now rounded out the powers of discrimination contained in this bill. Notwithstanding the other sections we've already passed which give that power to discriminate among individuals, we have now said that even if the employees, whether they are nurses or police officers, or work in the universities or in the public service of the province directly, achieve a collective agreement that embodies the principle of fair play in terms of layoffs or termination, the terms of the collective agreement do not apply.

What we're doing under this subsection is embodying in legislative form the power of government to discriminate in the firing of employees. That power has not been in the province of British Columbia heretofore, Mr. Chairman. In the contract of the International Woodworkers of America, for example, article 15 has the power to lay off or terminate employees subject to the competence of the individual concerned. In the case in front of me at the present time — Hillcrest Lumber and the IWA — the arbitration board said it could not agree with the view that the company is correct when it declares that management should have the final say on this question of competency. But the government is having the final say on the question of the fitness or the competency of the individual, notwithstanding the terms of a collective agreement. What does that mean in terms of natural justice and the security of employment of more than 200,000 public sector employees in the province of British Columbia? It means the Social Credit government has wiped out the laws of fair play that have applied so far in the province of British Columbia, and in the public sector under the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

I see the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) there; this Bill 3 affects the universities. The principle that you are laid off if you are incompetent we do not dispute; the principle that you are laid off if your work is not needed we do not dispute; but the right to pick....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Let the Minister of Universities go to UBC and defend this principle.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: In this bill you have the power to discriminate: to fire somebody who is doing his job, who is competent; to fire somebody because you don't like his political opinions, his style of life. That's what it's saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Baloney!

MR. MACDONALD: You say baloney; get up and defend it, and we'll provide the answer. You don't have the courage to stand up in your place and defend this thing in terms of the universities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. MACDONALD: All right, we're in committee, I'll sit down. Let him defend that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Personal reflections are out of order, hon. member.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the member has given me an invitation, one that nobody could refuse, to speak to this particular section or amendment, or however it's described in terms of the mish-mash we have in front of us as a bill. But regardless, there is a vital principle here which the New Democratic Party opposite has never recognized. It is something called the public interest — has the New Democratic Party ever heard of the public interest? — and the fact that somewhere along the line the ability of the taxpayer to pay has to count, here or anywhere else. Has the New Democratic Party ever thought of that? You in that party over there are so used to your union rules and the idea that all of this is everything that counts in fair play, that somewhere along the line you have forgotten totally about the economy, totally about the ability of the taxpayer to pay, and in so doing have abandoned common sense.

You don't understand what restraint is all about because jobs for the boys has been your policy since the beginning of time. That's the problem with the New Democratic Party; that's the problem with the opposition. When people are elected to govern, they take responsibility for governing, and that means having some interest, some respect for the public purse, the taxpayers and the economy of British Columbia. Of course I support this bill, every amendment and every subadmendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's return to debate, decorum.

[1:15]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the minister got up and explained these things, but he does not understand the section. He has no conception of what we are doing this morning under this legislation.

I can debate with him on any platform he wants about restraint and about how the poor taxpayer.... He is thinking of the rich, but that's another debate.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Groaning! They've never had it so good in their lives, but that's not the point. He talks about the public interest. It is not in the public interest to give the government of British Columbia the power to discriminate as

[ Page 2662 ]

between.... If they are going to lay off one body in a particular branch or division and you have a Smith, a Jones and a Brown, then let that layoff be done fairly in accordance with natural justice and the ordinary laws that we have lived with in terms of industrial relations in this province, to our pride. But what this bill says — and of course the minister has no understanding whatsoever of what we are doing in this bill — is that notwithstanding any general laws, notwithstanding the competency of the individual, notwithstanding his length of seniority.... Oh, you say you'll pay service to that in that draft regulation. "We will consider that, and unless you find us guilty of discrimination or bad faith" — and who can prove that? — "it won't count." Those are your draft regulations. This bill is the power to pick and choose and punish and intimidate. No employee at the university, no employee in the police forces, no employee in the hospitals is safe from this kind of picking and choosing and discrimination.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're exaggerating.

MR. MACDONALD: I am not exaggerating. That's what we are doing tonight.

Mr. Chairman, take another agreement — the pulp workers agreement at the Skeena pulp mill at Prince Rupert.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point we are digressing a bit from the strict relevancy of the section.

MR. MACDONALD: No, Mr. Chairman, I'm right on the point. We are saying that no provision of any collective agreement can be allowed to help the employee under these circumstances. I am quoting a collective agreement which is the traditional law of the province of British Columbia — the principle we are abandoning. I state it here. Section 1: "The company recognizes the principles of seniority in their application to the promotion, demotion, transfer, layoff and recall of an employee, providing the employee has the qualifications and ability to perform the work properly." Now why would you want to lay off somebody contrary to that clause? That's what we are doing here. We are saying, "notwithstanding the terms of any collective agreement that may be negotiated."

MR. HANSON: What is the answer to that one?

MR. MACDONALD: The answer is intimidation. This is the government that brought in those obnoxious words, "without cause," to strike fear into the public employees of the province of British Columbia; to tell them that Big Brother government can take away their livelihood if they do not behave themselves. Here we see that they are abrogating even that provision of some job protection that might be included in a collective agreement. This bill is a power to discriminate. It is a power of government to intimidate individuals if they write a letter to the editor, if their lifestyle does not appeal to somebody in government. If there is a vendetta in a particular branch or department of the government service or the university service — have it what you will — then that employee can be terminated contrary to the rules of natural justice, contrary to the ordinary rules, even though he is the most fit and competent person in the operation. That's what you are doing.

You are absolutely abrogating the rights of fair play. You are flying right in the teeth of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. You are flying right in the teeth of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You are enacting in this bill the right to discriminate. You are mocking your own so-called human rights legislation in this kind of picking and choosing. No government should have that kind of power. It is Social Credit intimidation that we are dealing with here tonight. Mr. Chairman, every public employee should understand that, should tuck that away — not get into trouble with this government, but remember, and fight for liberty, fight for fair play, fight for natural justice, fight back against this kind of governmental interference with private individual livelihoods. That's what we're doing tonight.

It is a disgraceful bill.

MR. GABELMANN: The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) talks about the NDP's inability to deal with the public interest or to be concerned with it. I want to ask him, as quietly and as rationally as I can, why engineers working for the B.C. Railway need to be treated in this discriminatory way — as they will under this section — when CPR doesn't need the same powers to lay off or to terminate engineers.

HON. MR. McGEER: Subsidy for the Crow.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to get out of order by talking about the Crow. I want to talk about the issue raised by the minister, in his out-of-order tirade in which he believed that decibels count for more than rationale.

The fact is, if there are 100 engineers working for B.C. Rail and the economy of the province is in decline and as a result fewer trains run, those engineers know which of them will be laid off and in which order at the present time. In the CPR it is exactly the same way. It matters not a whit what shape the economy is in. There is a procedure for laying off individuals till they reach the number that they need to operate properly. That applies to the CPR, the CNR and the BCR. But what this Section in this bill intends to introduce is that on the B.C. Rail there will be a different set of rules, and they won't just be the rules that this Legislature might adopt in this bill, but they will be rules that can be made in the cabinet room under regulation at any time.

I refuse, in this debate, to discuss the regulations that were laid down on Friday last, because they are irrelevant to this debate — absolutely irrelevant. An hour after this bill is proclaimed those regulations can be amended. They are absolutely of no interest or concern to me, because they can be amended secretly, without any recourse to public policy or without any recourse to public discussion.

Where in the argument of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications is the issue that he pretends is involved in this subsection? The NDP is opposed to laying off engineers in the BCR if they are not needed because there aren't enough trains running? Nonsense! The collective agreement allows for that, by seniority. The person with the least seniority goes down first under that collective agreement. Not any more.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Read the words. When there is a dispute regarding power of termination — and it has become quite clear that the government doesn't know the difference

[ Page 2663 ]

between termination and layoff.... When there is a dispute between the termination and on the other hand the provisions of a collective agreement, subsection (1) applies or the regulations apply. As strongly as I oppose having this legislation set that out, I oppose even more strongly the appropriation of that right into the cabinet chamber so that it no longer is a public discussion. When this legislation is in place, every single one of the engineers on the B.C. Rail will know that if they take any political action, or if they offend their superiors, or if they argue about how safe the railway is, or if they make any number of any other kinds of points, they may lose their jobs and there is no recourse. They will never know why they lost their jobs, but they can guess. Do you think their collective agreement will mean anything to them then? Do you think that shop stewards are going to want to enforce other provisions of the collective agreement that protect working people, when they know that the provision in this subsection can mean that despite their collective agreement they lose their jobs?

There's no protection in there for seniority. Allegedly there is protection in the regulations; that can be changed an hour after the bill's proclaimed. Even then, as the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) suggests, if the regulations are adhered to and not changed, seniority is only something to be considered among a variety of other things, and no particular weight need be given to it, nor any explanation of why the decision was made. It can just be made.

I cite the BCR because it's an obvious one; there's a private sector parallel there. I wanted to pick up on the comments of the Minister of Universities, because never have we in this party argued that people should be kept working when there isn't work to do. I don't argue that Crown Zellerbach, now Crown Forest Industries, should keep on employees at the pulp mill in Campbell River simply because they were working there last month when there was paper selling and there isn't this month. They lay them off; fair enough; so they should. It's unfortunate in our society that it's so boom and bust that we can't have full employment, but that's the nature of it at the moment, and we're not arguing against that.

But why shouldn't that same principle apply in all of those sectors? Not just the public service, which is 20 percent of this legislation, but the other 80 percent of this legislation as well, which deals with people who have been conducting their labour relations under the Labour Code and have in every respect behaved as if they were a private company and a private sector workforce — in every respect other than that they happen to be Crown agencies, indirectly or directly. So why this power for them? Why can't the normal provisions of a collective agreement that has been negotiated in good faith apply? And why do we need this kind of language? Is the minister suggesting that he doesn't have any confidence in the ability of his negotiating team to negotiate an agreement that the cabinet can live with? If you can't live with the agreement that has been negotiated, don't approve it. The Treasury Board has that power. And if you can't stand the heat of a lockout or a strike, which is the natural way to resolve this kind of thing in our system, then get out of the kitchen. But don't use this Legislature to give cabinet authority to do things that are traditionally not done and not acceptable in this society.

This is an important principle, which the member for Vancouver East has enunciated far more clearly than I'm doing. Mr. Chairman, my passion is no less strong, although I may not use the eloquent language he uses.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I will respond to some of the issues that have been raised. First of all, the second member for Vancouver East talks about our ability to terminate being able to discriminate against Jones versus Brown or Smith or something of that nature. I think the member should recognize that the act does not allow for that, and if there is to be.... The only conditions under which terminations can take place are spelt out in section 2(l). I suggest to you that if any individual is terminated on grounds other than those specified there, he can be reinstated and reinstated with compensation for time lost if there is time lost, as well.

[1:30]

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, seniority will prevail. What's the matter with you?

The member for North Island talks about the B.C. Rail and how this is going to impose a hardship and a different mode of employment on the BCR versus Canadian Pacific or CNR. I don't like moving from one section to the other, but nevertheless as we press on we'll see section 2.2(l), which addresses the question of "No pre-existing right to terminate affected." It says: "Nothing in this Act impairs, alters or affects a right that a public sector employer has to terminate the employment of an employee pursuant to the provisions of a collective agreement or at common law." The member is suggesting that this particular subsection which we are debating will create a hardship for employees of B.C. Rail, when section 2.2(l) addresses that issue.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, it doesn't address that issue, because in subsection 2(l)(b) — if I've done these numbers right — when the employer makes a change in the organizational structure of the employer.... It might be that a seniority list now applies industry-wide in that particular railway, for example, but they may decide to change the organizational structure so that all of the engineers on the railway, to continue that example, who work out of North Van are in a different structure than the ones who work out of Prince George. Who's to say that that change in organizational structure initiated by the employer doesn't allow them then to say: "Aha! This guy who has more seniority than others in the workforce, but who has the least seniority in this new little compact subsection which we've reorganized.... We've now got him. He can go, because we've reorganized our employer's structure"?

When you look at the government service you can see this same argument in spades. The argument isn't well made under the railway because it's a different kind of structure, but you can see it made in ministry after ministry in the government service. A simple change in the organizational structure, over which there is no possibility for negotiation or discussion, or no possibility, as I understand it, for arbitration.... That's not fair in this society, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, if the member isn't impressed with my discussion of the matter of no preexisting right to terminate being affected, then I think he should look at the section down the road dealing with the issue of exemption orders. If a public sector employer and a trade union have within their collective agreement layoff

[ Page 2664 ]

provisions that address this issue of downsizing.... If they have the ability to downsize, they don't have to be subject to this legislation. They can make an application for an exemption order, and they can be exempted from the legislation providing they have that within their collective agreement.

MR. D'ARCY: In furthering this discussion on subsection 2(3), I would like now to move an amendment I proposed earlier. We can go through it again, Mr. Chairman: subsection (3), lines 1 and 2, by deleting the words "notwithstanding any provision of a collective agreement"; in line 7, by deleting the words "subsection (1) or the regulation, as the case may be," and substituting "the provisions of the collective agreement."

If I could speak to the amendment, Mr. Chairman; consistent with the discussion that we've already had on this section, this amendment proposes to do what the government has said they want to do, which is to maintain, if not establish, consistency with the private sector. We would note that any changes in a collective agreement in the private sector are negotiated and, if necessary, arbitrated. That has been true, as the member for North Island said, in the public sector 83 or 84 percent outside of the direct provincial control. There has been a rule of law; there have been decisions made under the Labour Code through a quasi-judicial body, the Labour Relations Board. This is consistent with practice not only in this province over a large number of years but in other jurisdictions in Canada, the United States and, indeed, in democracies throughout the western world.

Once again we ask why the government asks for powers unto itself which the private sector does not have and has indeed not asked for, and which are not necessary; indeed, powers which the private sector usually does not use even where there is no collective agreement and no union in place. So if, as the government apologists, including the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom), want to say that we need to deal with reality in the same way as the private sector has to deal with reality when business falls off, then I have no objection to that, but let's go under the same rules and provisions that the private sector has to have. That is why we have put that amendment in.

I want to further talk about....

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. The minister rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to interfere with the member's speech, but having had an opportunity to look at the proposed amendment to the amendment, I find that it completely changes the intent of that particular section, and therefore appears to be out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the decision of this committee on a former amendment, and the cumulative effect of the proposed amendments amount to a negativing of the bill, and I so rule. The amendment is out of order.

MR. D'ARCY: With respect, I must challenge the decision on this particular proposed amendment.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 7

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

On section 2 as amended.

[1:45]

MR. D'ARCY: Further, on section 2(3), I'd like to address myself to comments that the minister made earlier in speaking on this subsection in which he indicated that, well, after all, when the contract expires it expires, and it's open season on everything. The minister is suggesting that a collective agreement contract between a group of employees and an employer is something like a business contract, where someone has a contract to supply goods or services over a period of time — buns to a cafeteria, accounting services, or whatever it may be — and that when such a contract expires, it's over. The fact is, though, that both in this province and elsewhere in the civilized world a collective agreement contract, when it has expired, has been considered to continue not only by the two parties involved, for the purposes of continuity in keeping that operation going, but also because it has been so ruled not only by the courts but also by, as I mentioned earlier, the quasi-judicial bodies such as the Labour Relations Board.

We would also note that there is a consistency of language in the various collective agreements around the province, particularly in the resource industries. There is a consistency of language in the manufacturing section. When contracts come up for renegotiation it's basically a fine-tuning of language. They don't just discuss wages; there's a fine-tuning of contract conditions. In fact, very often that is a good deal greater part of the renegotiations than wages and salary. So for the minister to suggest that a contract expires and therefore the government needs these broad powers is, in fact, a specious argument, because it's quite clear that in the private sector, contracts, not only by law but also by practice, carry on. There's a good reason for that. In the private sector, companies want to keep their employees; they want to maintain morale. While naturally there may be changes to the employer's advantage that the employer would wish to negotiate, they certainly don't want to have, shall we say, zero-base contracts or to throw the baby out with the bathwater,

[ Page 2665 ]

because the important thing to them is that there is consistency.

So I would like the minister to accept our proposals to change various sections of this, because, clearly, the powers which he is taking unto himself and unto the cabinet through the regulations are not powers which are wanted or needed or have been asked for in the private sector, for very good reason. There is absolutely no comparison between a collective agreement contract in the private or the public sector and a business contract where one party agrees to provide a good or service for a set fee over a period of time.

MR. MITCHELL: I think when we're reviewing these amendments within the sections of the Labour Code and Bill 3, we tend to forget the way our collective agreements have grown over the years. It's not for me to tell the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) or the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who is a member of the legal profession, that there is so much inconsistency with the wording and the reference to collective agreements and the terminology within collective agreements. I predict, like my colleague for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), that this whole piece of legislation is going to be a kind of a legal nightmare when it hits the court system. I know my own agreement that I worked under for years never did say that it expired; it had the anniversary date of the agreement. When you refer to an anniversary date, in no collective agreement that I have ever seen does a collective agreement terminate or expire. You are inventing laws to accomplish something; maybe you feel that the power of government to decide what the taxation will be on a certain municipality or any public body is right, but I am convinced that the way you're going about it is completely wrong.

When we look at the wording in there: "Subject to subsection (2), subsection (1) and a regulation made under section 3 or 4 apply nothwithstanding any provisions of a collective agreement, and where there is an inconsistency....." It goes on that the regulations will change. When you try and put that into context with the way a collective agreement is negotiated, it's negotiated with a public sector employer. I know from experience that in police departments you have basically, under the Police Act, a police officer and a chief constable, but these are the only two people who are designated. But in a collective agreement you have such things as detective and traffic branches and patrol and juvenile divisions, and promotions are gained within the collective agreement through the process of the enlarging of the department and the new branches they have set up. In spite of what the government may think, people do move from general patrol to detective branches or juvenile or traffic because it's a promotion. And that promotion fits within the collective agreement.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have some difficulty relating the words of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to this particular subsection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. The amendment is quite specific, and I would ask the member to relate his remarks to the amendment before us.

MR. MITCHELL: Right. With this particular amendment you have to fit it into the bill it amends and the way it fits into previous sections.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I do understand committee. This is what I'm trying to say. This section should be withdrawn because what it's establishing is something that is not consistent with collective agreements. The way collective agreements have grown over the years, there are various groups within the general employer, and I say in all honesty to the minister that when a collective agreement is written with an employer and in that collective agreement it has a number of divisions within, we'll say, the police force, and then you all of a sudden say that we can wipe out one particular division and then seniority or anything else doesn't come into consideration, then you're going to wipe out anybody from a superintendent right down. Very few agreements have ever been written to fit into the new wording of this particular piece of legislation. You are going to cause so much turmoil among public sector employees. Each section that we attempt to jam through is going to create that burning hate toward the Social Credit, so that the job the public sector employees have to do will not be done in the manner that taxpayers expect.

This is why I think that at this time somebody should rewrite what you're trying to do a little more consistently with collective agreements. If you're going to refer to a collective agreement, you have to have the terminology that is going to fit into collective agreements. We have not, in this piece of legislation, fitted the terminology into that collective agreement. I think the minister, in his wisdom from his previous portfolio as Labour minister, understands this more than anybody in this House.

MR. PASSARELL: There are a couple of points I would like to bring forward regarding this section. I share sentiments with my colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) when he talks about the aspects of court decisions, but I'd like to centre on the last sentence of this section, which says "subsection (1) or the regulation, as the case may be, prevails." My concern is that regulation is devised by the executive council. There is no public input into the aspect. My concern is that what cabinet will be doing on Wednesday mornings will limit any kind of public input into this aspect. It will disregard back-benchers or any member of the Legislature putting in any kind of emphasis onto this one section I read earlier. What I would like to see changed is that the regulation would be dropped and it would be referred to a section where the Legislature would make that decision, instead of saying "regulation, as the case may be, prevails." Instead of having the executive council making those decisions behind closed doors, it would be open to the Legislature to make those decisions.

[2:00]

MR. HANSON: As I read section 2(3) and as I read the original language, it appears that a change had to take place, and the change was to make a place for the role in cabinet in drafting the regulations. When you look at section 2(3) in the amendments, it states: "Subject to subsection (2), subsection (1) and a regulation made under section 3 or 4 apply...." In lay language, what that means is that subject to subsection (2) in the act, which provides for the amendment that is already passed, section 2 in its entirety lays out the overriding of the Labour Code and the Public Service Labour Relations Act and identifies the broad criteria by which the cabinet is

[ Page 2666 ]

empowered to terminate. Then it refers to subsection (1), which is the same, and the regulation.

The point of my remark is that we have a sample of the regulations that were laid out by the minister today, and what he is apparently trying to do in this amendment is to rewrite labour law in the middle of the night. A termination, under these regulations, allows an employee to opt for a compensation schedule which is drafted by cabinet on a Wednesday morning, when they meet over their coffee and determine what the compensation for police, firefighters, bus drivers, B.C. Rail, school boards or water districts will be — what the compensation package or the severance package will be. Not an arbitrator. What does he know? He just knows arbitration cases. He knows labour law. So here we have the cabinet who determine the compensation package and then they have these little plans. This is just a draft regulation, but it's the kind of thing to come. "Right to recall." Even the heading is erroneous. I'm referring to the regulations as identified in this amendment. "6(l). An employee whose employment is terminated or who is laid off under the act may, instead of receiving compensation," have his name put in a barrel. Playing off the person's innate desire to have employment....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, this member is not debating section 2(3). He is attempting to go into the regulations and discuss the regulations. We had a very thorough in-depth analysis of the regulations a few hours ago while that member was sleeping. I don't think that it serves this House well for a member who has been sleeping for some considerable time to come back into the House and reopen a discussion that is not consistent with the subject which we are presently discussing. The question of compensation and the regulations which were revealed yesterday has had a thorough airing, and it does not pertain to this particular section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. The committee is well aware that the regulations were discussed at some length during debate on the amendment to section 2(l). Perhaps if the member has new information to bring to us on the subject of amendment of section 2(3), then he will advance it now.

MR. HANSON: My point is that the cabinet is creating a dog's breakfast out of labour law. They are going to create chaos in this province. Even the whiskered members of this House and staff find it difficult to understand this dog's breakfast before us. The point is that the clause before us, 2(3), refers to the regulations that will be made pursuant to the act, which will cover termination, compensation and so on. Rather than being enshrined in common law, as was so eloquently described by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald).... Rather than resorting to hundreds of years of experience, fair play, justice and common law, the government is remaking the labour law of this province in the middle of the night, in a ramrod session, to make sure they make it before the Premier gives his speech to the women's auxiliary on Thursday night.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is totally out of order. He has already advanced the argument, and the debate he is entering into is repetitious. Pursuant to standing order 43, I will ask the member to advance new material or discontinue his speech.

MR. HANSON: As I look today through the draft regulations, which of course are the model of the kind of regulations to come, I want to make the point that it is entirely inappropriate to have something as severe as the severing of an individual's livelihood, and putting the livelihood of a family at risk, and to make it subject to the whim of a Wednesday morning cabinet meeting. That is not the way to have a stable society. People get very angry if they're terminated on that basis, if they don't have proper appeal and recourse through a fair and just process. That is my main point, Mr. Chairman, and I'm going to take my seat on that point and we should have a vote.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 7

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move the section standing in my my name on the order paper, section 2(4). [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: I have an amendment to section 2(4).

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I moved.... You're moving an amendment on my amendment? A subamendment, you call it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member was duly recognized, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I haven't even moved the amendment yet. Give me a break. I may make a few changes in it.

As a number of our members have indicated, there is a concern on the part of this caucus and this party about the transitional provisions of the collective agreement, and that it has been traditional in this province that the terms of the previous collective agreement carry on through the process of negotiation and bargaining up until the time that a new collective agreement is signed. This section appears to create an expiry date for an agreement, and at that expiry date people can be terminated under section 2(2), I believe. We

[ Page 2667 ]

would like to have an assurance that the traditions in this province are recognized and that a collective agreement would continue in effect through this transitional phase until such time as a new collective agreement is entered into and comes into force.

So I move an amendment which would specify this. The amendment says: "In section 2, to delete subsection (4) and substitute therefor, 'for the purposes of subsection (2) a collective agreement continues in force until such time as a new collective agreement is entered into by the parties thereto.' "

HON. MR. CHABOT: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I have listened to the member for Alberni and the reading of his proposed amendment. Essentially, it completely negates the subsection which I recently amended, and under those circumstances I'm sure that you'll find that the attempt by the member for Alberni to amend my subsection is completely and utterly out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. You did the Chair's job admirably well, because the Chair was about to find that this amendment, being a complete negative, is therefore out of order.

[2:15]

MR. SKELLY: I challenge your ruling.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 6

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

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

On the amendment to section 2(4).

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the minister wasn't able to accept our amendment on this section. We are concerned about the fact that, under this section, when the collective agreement expires the employer has the opportunity to terminate people. As we pointed out, before this time collective agreements were assumed to carry on while negotiations were in progress. There were not real expiry provisions; the employees continued to work under the terms and conditions laid out in the agreement previously negotiated in spite of the fact that there was a termination date on that agreement. In order to create a time when people can be fired virtually without cause, this terminates the agreement and eliminates that transition phase. As a number of members have said, it flies in the face of the tradition of labour relations legislation and the sanctity of agreements and contracts in this province. It is an unfortunate provision to be included in our legislation.

It is also included in Bill 26. There is an opportunity in Bill 26 that when a collective agreement expires, all the terms and conditions of employment collapse down to the minimum provided for under the Employment Standards Act. What is going to happen is that there is going to be no incentive for employers to bargain in good faith, to re-establish collective agreements, because they can drop down to virtually nothing or down to the minimum provided for under the employment standards legislation and under this act. It virtually destroys any incentive, as far as we can see, for employers to negotiate a collective agreement in good faith. For that reason our party would have to oppose this section.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, in an earlier section I made some reference obliquely to this provision of Bill 3, a provision that I find to be quite.... I guess we have run out of words in describing this, but I find it quite reprehensible. What the government is seeking to achieve through this subsection is to allow for every one of the public sector agreements in this province, in respect of termination, to expire completely on the date of the expiry of the collective agreement. No other provision — yet — of the collective agreement will be null and void come the expiry date, but the provisions respecting so-called termination will be null and void.

The minister made the argument, I guess on section 2(3), that if there are termination provisions written into a collective agreement in the public sector, then the union can apply to the Compensation Stabilization Commission for exemption. In that respect, so goes the argument, subsection (4) would not apply. Why the government wants to put the Compensation Stabilization Commission in that position is beyond me. Apart from any argument we may have about the rightness of that program — and I have a lot of argument with it — if the program is going to succeed you don't give that commission so many jobs which can lead them into trouble that the primary objective of that particular program is placed in jeopardy. From the government's own point of view, why would they want to do that? In any event, what guarantees are there that once an application is made Mr. Peck or whoever might succeed him in that job would agree to that request?

So we have to treat subsection (4) at its face value and not assume that those contracts that contain termination provisions would be exempted. There is no guarantee of that — not the way the legislation is written. They can choose to apply to have themselves exempted but they can't be sure that that will happen, no matter how effective their termination clause might be in terms of the government's objectives.

[2:30]

If the government's objective is downsizing the government or various programs, then they don't need the power to say on the day that a contract expires that the provisions

[ Page 2668 ]

respecting termination of employees, as defined in subsection (2), are null and void. There are many parallels in the private sector, but one parallel that one thinks of is a parallel in the private woods industry. When I worked in the woods setting chokers, we used to have 13 or 14 people on each side. They now have, depending on how they do the yarding, between four and six. Over the years they have managed to reduce the size of the workforce in that particular aspect of the operation, as they have in every other aspect of the operation in that particular private industry, through the provisions of collective agreements that don't expire. So why do public sector employers need that? Would a nationalized — if there was one — forest company need this power? Of course not. Does a government need it? Of course not. They can negotiate the same kind of collective agreements that the private sector negotiates. We have made this argument so often and ad nauseam, I guess, that I am becoming nauseated myself and therefore run the risk of becoming tedious and therefore obviously need to draw this line of argument to a close.

I will do that, speaking for myself, by saying that here again we have that thin edge of the wedge driving into what have been traditional procedures, traditional law, traditional ways of dealing with labour relations that have been accepted by everybody in the business — by employers, by employees, by the labour board, by experts — although having experts agree doesn't necessarily mean very much. But everybody involved has agreed that if a collective agreement runs out of time, its provisions still apply. This kind of section, once accepted and once in practice, can lead to additional items being included. And once it happens the first time it's easier to happen the second time, and before we know it we'll have the law in this province saying that collective agreements don't apply in any fashion once they expire. The logical extension of that is that workers could be working for the minimum wage unless they agree to negotiate and conclude a collective agreement by the date of the expiry of the old one. What incredible pressure that would put on both sides of the bargaining table to attempt to reach an agreement before the expiry date, and what chaos that would lead to. This is just the beginning in that process. Why the government feels that it needs to have this apply to the entire public sector — one-quarter of a million workers in this province — is absolutely beyond me. It is wrong in principle, it is wrong in law and it is wrong in terms of any objectives that the government might have, because it will be counterproductive.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, when I look at this piece of legislation...

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: ...this section and subsection — as I have just been coached by the minister — I think we are forgetting one thing. This law that we are attempting to pass this evening is a piece of legislation that will stay in effect for the next two, three, four years. I know the government's intention: they look down the line to October 31. But this legislation does not say that — this section does not say October 31. It is a piece of legislation that will be on the statute books of the province of British Columbia. What it is saying in effect is that collective agreements will not mean anything after a certain date. I ask the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) and I ask the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and I ask the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who are members of the legal profession, to read that section. Read the section and realize that this section doesn't run out on October 31, when the only thing you're really looking at is the B.C. government workers' collective agreement. You're looking at all collective agreements in operation for all the public sector employee groups, and you have a piece of legislation that even I, not being a legal person, can drive a truck through. I think that for the good of legislation in this province.... I would hate to see all the police departments stop on their anniversary date of December 31. If all of them said, "We're not working, because our agreement with our employer is null and void...." It doesn't say anything in there about anniversary dates. The intent of an anniversary date is that when you start to change your agreement, your agreement is in force and you have to notify them 90 days ahead or something. But the terminology, the wording of that section which is going to be statute in British Columbia is a disaster. I say to the minister that I know that he had all the legal staff he needs. I know that if you get someone with a little thought.... Even if you're making it stronger for your own position.... Make it, but don't leave that type of wording on the statute books.

It goes on and on — a matter for common law or other laws or anything else. Everything is going to end on expiry date. What it is saying in effect is: what is the value of a collective agreement in the public sector? It can be altered — all of a sudden they no longer exist. I plead with you.... I just want it on the record, when it gets into court that there are some of us trying to point out to the government that section 2(4) is a legal disaster. If the government, in its wisdom, led by the minister, wishes to proceed with its head down and not listen.... I think we are not going to help the workforce in this province, we are not going to help the public, we are not going to help any type of labour negotiations when we have this type of legislation hanging over us. You are not going to get negotiations. You are going to get one lawyer saying one thing, another lawyer saying another, and then they are going to try to write an agreement that will circumvent this piece of legislation. We're going to try to bring some common sense.... We all know what is happening in the public sector, and not only in the public sector but also in the private sector negotiations. It is power groups, legalistic arguments and terminology. What is needed in this province is some sane labour legislation that is going to bring some stability to our economy. I know the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) goes off into the realm of the public having to pay. The public is going to pay for all the discord that this type of legislation is going to create. I am convinced that if some sanity doesn't come from some section of the government, to sit down and look at it.... If you won't look at the intent of the legislation or if you won't look at the principle of collective bargaining, at least look at the wording of that particular section.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I want to express my concerns about this amendment before we proceed. There is no question whatsoever that in the province of B.C. we have been fortunate in recent years that we have had reasonably good labour-management stability, as compared with our own historical record as well as compared with other jurisdictions. I have a concern that this amendment in this section could have deleterious effects on that stability in the public sector and as well, by reflection, potentially in the private

[ Page 2669 ]

sector. There is no doubt whatsoever that if we had a consistent pattern of "no contract no work" taking effect in industry, even in this year of 1983, it is quite possible that major unions.... For instance, the forest industry could well have been shut down for the past several months. Admittedly we do have a few brushfire disputes going on in the forest industry, including one in my own riding, but the fact is that basically, through a long period of negotiation, there has been a lot of stability there three and four months after the original contracts expired. I believe that this amendment, the way it is proposed now, is going to have a serious effect on labour-management stability and the continuity of contracts after they have expired, until such time as a new contract can be put into place. Funadmentally for that reason, as well as for other reasons expressed by my colleagues, we are going to be consistently opposing this.

MR. PASSARELL Seventeen minutes to three, Pacific daylight time. I have a couple of concerns about the amendment to this section here. Just to go back to some of the statements that my hon. friend from Rossland–Trail made about the labour-management unrest which could come about from this, I'd like to direct this to teachers as public sector employees. As the minister probably knows, when we were in negotiations as teachers before our contract expired at the end of December, to be in place on January 1 of the new year, for approximately six weeks we would sit with the school board and go over aspects of the collective agreement that we wanted to keep in place, update or improve. I found out that in those six weeks of negotiation many problems could often be solved. But with this government bringing in this type of legislation — particularly with this section — everything is going to be thrown into chaos. People will be sitting down — if they get to the point of sitting down with management — and saying: "What's the sense of even negotiating? What is the sense of bringing forward positive suggestions if we know that the government, through its mandate and through its commissioner, will change any negotiations or collective agreement that we have?"

Another issue that comes in in part — about showing how good management and good unions can sit down at times.... In some of the agreements that have just been signed in the great white north in the last month, particularly with Brinco and Canada Wide Mines, union and management sat down and came to agreements, knowing the economic climate of the situation. I would certainly hope that the government would take a second look at this section before it's passed.

[2:45]

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 7

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the section standing in my name on the order paper, section 2(6).

MR. GABELMANN: Having dealt with 2(4), how about we deal with 2(5) ?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no 2(5).

MR. GABELMANN: There certainly is. The reason there might be some confusion about that is that it seems to be one of the few areas where they didn't make a mistake the first time around, from their own point of view, because there aren't any amendments on the order paper for this — but it is there.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: It's there. Just so that we all know what we're talking about: "A provision of a collective agreement entered into or renewed by a public sector employer after July 7, 1983, that is inconsistent with subsection (1) has no effect."

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, sections in committee are not discussed by subsections. The minister has individual amendments to move, which are considered as amendments. But the section of the act is not passed and discussed subsection by subsection. It's just a series of amendments and therefore the discussion of the member for North Island is out of order. He can discuss section 2 as a whole after all of the amendments have passed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister is absolutely correct. But I was going on the assumption that the member for North Island had an amendment he wanted to move. Is that correct, hon. member?

MR. GABELMANN: The amendment that I would like to move would be to delete the subsection. The way I accomplish that is by voting against the subsection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then, hon. member, the Chair would suggest that we should carry on with the amendment to section 2 subsection (6).

MR. GABELMANN: Before we all get overly exercised here, let's just slow down and relax. One of the things we've been doing in debating section 2 of the bill.... I agree with the overall point of order that the minister makes; he has made a valid point of order for a change. It's true. We deal with the entire section 2, but because there have been such a long series of amendments proposed by the minister, and because there have been a series of amendments proposed by opposition members right at the beginning of this section, we agreed some three hours ago, whether by formal discussion and formal decision or just by the way we decided to begin the process, to do this seriatim. Otherwise, we would be in utter

[ Page 2670 ]

chaos in attempting to deal with a whole series of amendments from both sides of the House. In you want us to deal with the whole section all at once, we will be in an impossible state. We just can't do it. What I want to specifically talk about is subsection (5).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the instructions that I had when we started out was that we would deal with all these section amendments under section 2 and we would pick up on the other ones later. For example, once we get through these and down to section 2 subsection (7) and that has been completed, then we would move back to the main section. Then we pick up section 2.1 and 2.2.

MR. GABELMANN: In effect, sections 2.1 and 2.2 are section 3 and section 4 when they're finally renumbered. Mr. Chairman, if you want to follow the rules suggested by the minister, and now being confirmed by you, then you will have to accept this motion: that is, I would move that we delete subsection (5). Otherwise, how can we talk about it?

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to deny the member the opportunity of moving that particular amendment. But I think he will have ample opportunity once you put the question: "Shall the section as amended pass?" He will have an opportunity at that time to move his amendment that we delete subsection (5).

MR. CHAIRMAN: I suppose I didn't do it quite as eloquently as the minister did, but that is what I was trying to explain as well.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't know whether this is debate or a point of order. We're all equal members in this House and every member has an equal opportunity to present amendments to this legislation. In the process of debating section 2, we have dealt with the minister's amendments seriatim. What the minister is suggesting is that he should get all of his amendments in and then we can start moving ours. We started a different procedure at the beginning of this and we moved them in conjunction with each other. On a certain subsection the minister would move his amendments and then we would move ours. There are two ways of going: we started one way and we got halfway through this particular section, and then in the middle of the game somebody wants to change the rules. It sounds like the collective bargaining the government is involved in.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. I hear precisely what you are saying, hon. member, and I have no quarrel with that. My understanding was that when we got into this procedure we would deal with these amendments that are on the order paper. Subsequent to that, we would deal with the section as amended.

The Chair rules that if you have an amendment to make on section 2 subsection (5), hon. member, would you please go ahead and make it and we'll deal with it.

MR. GABELMANN: I would move that section 2 subsection (5) be amended by deleting subsection (5).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order. Would the member like to continue to speak to the amendment?

On the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: The government likes to argue that governments shouldn't involve themselves in the marketplace. It argues a free enterprise approach to society, one in which it says that governments should not intervene. Let the market forces govern themselves. If a particular entrepreneur wants to sell a particular product at a particular price or under a certain set of circumstances, then that entrepreneur should be free to do that. Why is it that that principle suddenly gets turned on its head when it comes to labour relations? Why is it that two parties acting freely can't negotiate an arrangement between themselves? The government would like us to believe that that should be the case in the entrepreneurial sector of our society. Yet what are we talking about? We're talking about the right of workers to negotiate with their employers certain terms and conditions of their employment. Yet the government feels that it should intervene in that sector of the marketplace but it doesn't want to in any other. That kind of philosophical inconsistency, Mr. Chairman, is beautifully symbolized by subsection (5) which I would like to have deleted from this act.

Obviously in committee we can't — I wouldn't expect us to — get into a philosophical debate about the role of collective bargaining in our society. But I would like the minister to at least tell me what his rationale is for this kind of massive intervention in this aspect of the marketplace when he and his colleagues are opposed to that kind of intervention.

I assume that the minister recognizes the philosophical inconsistencies and doesn't want to engage in any discussion about them. Is that a correct assumption?

[3:00]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just to clarify my position, I'm not prepared to support the proposed amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 7

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move section 2(6) standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

[ Page 2671 ]

MR. PASSARELL Mr. Chairman, just a few words concerning this. Section 2(6) deletes the words "school board" and adds the words "board of school trustees." It's 3:08 Pacific daylight time and 6:08 Eastern daylight time....

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: We've finally aroused some of the senior members of government here. Now that I've got their attention, I would just like to discuss a few items on the section itself.

Just think, Mr. Chairman, today I was on a DC3. I drove on some icy roads and look at what I come to see. The happiest group....

MR. SEGARTY: Just think how disappointed we are.

MR. PASSARELL Well, let's go back onto this. I know we want....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Now look at that. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) says to me across the floor: "Too bad you didn't slide off the road." Do you really believe that nonsense you say?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we are discussing section 2(6): "By deleting 'school board' and substituting 'board of school trustees.' "

MR. PASSARELL Thank you. You know, this is the same attitude, Mr. Chairman, that they have in bringing in this section here. Deleting "school board" and substituting "board of school trustees" is a non-caring attitude. But why...?

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member is really talking a bunch of nonsense. All we're doing here is deleting "school board" and substituting "board of school trustees," which conforms to the interpretation of the legislation. It's a minor housekeeping amendment, and there is nothing that can really be interpreted. Maybe if he wants to yack and be a little bit out of order, we should do that on the next subsection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. The hon. member does have a right to speak to this. If he will speak directly to the section, will he proceed, please?

MR. PASSARELL: The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), who is known for his wit at times, even though not for his legal experience....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right. If this was simply a....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I believe we've been doing quite well up until now, and there's no reason that this should deteriorate in any way, shape or form. If we can just have the hon. member speak to this particular section, we'll get on with it and then we'll be able to move along to the next section.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, it always worries me when I hear the Provincial Secretary stand up and say it's just a housekeeping amendment. Why are we replacing school boards with boards of school trustees unless the fact remains, or is going to be shown, that you're stripping away more power from locally elected school boards? You're trying to replace duly elected school boards with the cabinet by having Wednesday's executive council meetings making decisions for the school boards who were duly elected by the constituencies.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if the member wants to argue the retention of the words "school board" instead of "board of school trustees," he might be in order. But in anything beyond that he's completely out of order. I'm not going to say that it's a housekeeping amendment....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll change that because you don't like that particular terminology. It's a minor drafting change.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. The point of order is well taken. With respect to the argument advanced in the matter of regulations, that argument has been well canvassed and is now becoming repetitive. Also, the committee is advised that in section 2(6) the relevant term is "this act applies to a teacher who is employed by a school board," and we have simply changed "school board" to "board of school trustees," but the wording of the subsection in the act applies to a teacher, and that is the relevant clause. Please proceed.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm certainly pleased and happy as punch that the minister said it was no longer a housekeeping amendment and that it was now a.... What was...?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: A minor chainsaw in the school boards here. But I appreciate his comments on that; it clarified it more.

Coming back to the aspect of teachers, Mr. Chairman, we know section 129 of the School Act says....

[3:15]

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think Hansard will adequately record the comments of the members opposite that are not relevant to the legislation, not relevant to the section and not really relevant to why we're in this legislative chamber at all. But I would certainly call the member to order and insist that people be here to debate the legislation before us, not to waste the time of the House and the wealth of the people of British Columbia in nonsense. Please call that member to order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, to the amendment.

[ Page 2672 ]

MR. PASSARELL: I would certainly hope that someone would call a doctor for that minister.

Back onto the aspect of section 2(6). The minister has made a clarification of why "school board" was substituted with "board of school trustees," and I would certainly hope that the minister will get up in debate and explain exactly why it was originally done as "school board" instead of "school trustees."

Another aspect I would like the minister to make a statement on is when he takes away "school board" and substitutes "board of school trustees," is he leaving out the decision process of a superintendent who might be involved in the process with a school board but not having any decision-making power with the board of school trustees? Is that the reason why this housekeeping measure was brought forward?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, really, the change in this particular subsection is to conform to the terminology that is utilized in section 1.

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 7

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, subsection 2(6) says: "Notwithstanding the School Act, this act applies to a teacher who is employed by a school board." There are provisions....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we have passed that section.

MR. MACDONALD: No, that's the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We've passed the amendment, yes.

MR. MACDONALD: No, we're on the section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we have one more to go, hon. members. Can we....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, namely to subsection 2(7). [See appendix.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

The member for Vancouver East on the amendment.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm glad you've seen the.... We had a little amendment dealing with changing "school board" to "board of school trustees," an amendment that should have been made in the first place. I can't understand the blundering of this government, but I'm now discussing the section.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I thought we'd had a division on the amendment to subsection 2(6), so that's been resolved, and now he's attempting to speak on the section. That's not a section, it's a subsection, and you'll have an opportunity to discuss that subsection when the time arrives. When the section as amended is asked to be passed, then the member for Vancouver East will have his opportunity. The member, having been here for 23 years, should recognize the procedure of this House by now. He's been here for 23 years of continuous service; he should recognize that.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, on a point of order, the minister has a right to move an amendment. He doesn't have the right to say that we don't have a right to move an amendment. We haven't requested that he delay introducing his amendments until we have discussed all of the subsections. He moves his amendments ahead of us; we give him that right. Now it's our turn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm waiting for the member for Vancouver East to move an amendment. Would the member please do so.

MR. MACDONALD: My right to speak on subsection 2(6) is conditional upon moving an amendment, although I will advise the Chair that I intend to do so in due course if I do not get satisfactory answers out of the minister relating to subsection 2 (6).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that would be after the other amendments are passed. If the member has an amendment now, would he please make it?

MR. MACDONALD: I don't agree with your procedure, Mr. Chairman, because we're discussing section 2, and that's what we're debating. But I have no objection to moving the amendment now, and I will do so, just to save time.

I move that subsection (6) of section 2 be amended by deleting the word "notwithstanding" and substituting "except as provided by."

I have a question to the minister before I make any further remarks on the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The amendment is a direct negative, and therefore fails. That's a ruling.

MR. HANSON: I challenge that ruling.

[3:30]

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

[ Page 2673 ]

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 7

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

The House in Committee on Bill 3; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, namely to subsection 2(7). [See appendix.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So.... On the amendment, the....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A division has been called.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I distinctly heard "division," hon. members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He called for a division.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll let the member speak.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) very distinctly asked for a division on this particular section. He stood in his place and asked for a division — and I assisted him, and other members did as well — and now you're suggesting we should disregard the wish of the first member for Victoria and not have a division. I think that's most unfair. Essentially, Mr. Chairman, he has put the question on this subsection, and I think we should follow the rules of this House. He asked for division; that means no one else can speak.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister has made his point of order. However, the Chair has recognized the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. Please proceed.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, just a minute. I might have to challenge your ruling. Just a minute, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think any more points of order are necessary. The Chair had not finished saying that the question had been so ordered, or whatever, so I recognize the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew on the amendment. Please proceed.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I recall hearing you mention the question, and I think Hansard will record that. I think it's an important question that should be raised probably with the Speaker at a later date. At a later time, as soon as Hansard is available, we'll determine whether you asked for the question and then recognized the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think the question had been fully put, so I recognize the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I don't know, Mr. Chairman. I think we should guard against deviation from the standard procedures of this House, which you apparently are deviating from at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, there is no deviation, hon. members; at least, there is no deviation at the table.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If the member for Columbia River keeps it up, he'll be in the same position as the first member for....

MR. CHAIRMAN: "Provincial Secretary" is the title.

MR. MITCHELL: The Provincial Secretary will be in the same position as the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the amendment, please.

MR. MITCHELL: I would just like a little clarification from the minister. I know there have been two changes in the original bill, and just for my own clarification, in accordance with the subsection 2(7), what is his interpretation of the current school term? Just as an example, so that we could have something to kind of compare, if a school board decides in October to terminate a teacher, on what date will that teacher be terminated?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Under the School Act the school years are divided into two terms, the first term ending on December 31 and the second term ending on July 1, each year.

MR. MITCHELL: What I'm saying, then, is that if the school board terminates the....

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the board of school trustees.

[ Page 2674 ]

MR. MITCHELL: Pardon me, the board of school trustees. Thank you for the correction; I stand corrected. If the board of school trustees decides to terminate a school teacher in October, then that teacher would be terminated as of December 31. Would that be correct?

HON. MR. CHABOT: If you are asking whether, if notice is given on October 31, that termination is effective December 31, the answer is yes.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to speak on this. Maybe it should come under the School Act or the minister's estimates. I know that under Bill 6 the termination date of funding is the calendar year, which I would say is the same date as he mentioned, which is December 31.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be outside the bounds of this amendment.

MR. MITCHELL: What I am really worried about, having had that particular wording, is that the average school year runs from September until June, and the students in a particular class have gotten used to a particular teacher. In all fairness to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), I would hope that he would have some input into this particular section. Is it wise, when you are trying to establish a certain rapport with the students, to terminate a teacher in mid-term? I am concerned that the minister, in his wisdom — and I know he has made all kinds of amendments that I think wrong — really wants to split up a school year and break up the continuity of a teacher in the classroom by cutting him or her off at Christmas, when it is customary for students to spend the year with one teacher. I was wondering what the wisdom was for making the changes. I believe it was originally the school year. Is there anything to gain by cutting them off at Christmas, when it would be better to continue that teacher in the classroom for the school year, as stated in the original act?

HON. MR. CHABOT: What the legislation essentially does is bring about termination at the end of the current school term. There are two school terms. The end of one is December 31, in some instances, if the need arises for termination. I'm not suggesting for a moment that that will come to pass to any substantial degree, but nevertheless the provision is there. Essentially what it does is clarify the original intent of the government.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I rise to support the amendment. Those who are concerned about it could make reference to the existing section 153 of the School Act, which makes reference to layoffs in the event of declining enrolment, a program cancellation or school closure. The only additional provision that you would find under the bill which is now before us involves insufficient funds and layoffs taking place. If you look in the definition section of the School Act for the term "school term," as the Provincial Secretary has mentioned, it is clear that there are two school terms in a school year. If you look into section 153 of the School Act now, you will also find that they make reference within the body of that section to two terms. So that is clear as well. I don't really see any difference, as a matter of fact, in the particular amendment as it applies to Bill 3, other than the addition of lack of funds in event of termination.

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 24

NAYS — 8

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

[3:45]

On section 2 as amended.

MR. MACDONALD: I see the worldwide travelers have returned from Korea and Europe and Regina.

I have a very simple question for the minister on section 2. Teachers could have been laid off or terminated under the provisions of the School Act. We all know that. So I'm asking the minister why he has now made the School Act provisions inapplicable and said that teachers can be terminated or laid off under the provisions of this bill, and in particular section 2. What was wrong with the termination procedures heretofore existing for the teachers in this province?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are debating the section as amended, but I would remind the committee that debate must be limited, because I think just about every point has been canvassed.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That particular question is out of order because of the fact that section 9 deals with that issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If it anticipates a section not before us, then that's anticipation.

MR. MACDONALD: I am dealing with section 2(6), which says: "Notwithstanding the School Act, this act applies to a teacher who is employed by a school board." We've changed that to "board of school trustees." What was wrong with the existing procedure that made you decide to enact section 2(6) ? Why should we vote for that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: We've had a division on that issue sometime ago on that specific subsection. There has been debate on that particular section, and I guess the simplest and shortest answer I could give the member is uniformity of application across the public sector.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm far from content with that answer. We're taking the school teachers of the province outside the protection of the traditional School Act. Under that act they could be laid off or terminated, and they had their

[ Page 2675 ]

appeals. The Minister of Education is sitting there too. There are a lot of school teachers who are very dedicated servants of the people of the province. Now I want to know why we should take those teachers out of the protection of the School Act. The minister hasn't said a word about that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have had sufficient debate on the subsections of section 2, and I do find — and I am looking at the act — that that question may be properly canvassed under section 9. Perhaps when we get to that section, the concern of the member can be brought to the attention of the committee. I will remind you of standing order 43, which points out that if the member....

MR. MACDONALD: I'm an elected member of this House, and I'm being asked to pass section 2(6). I want an explanation. I'm not going to be cut off in that cavalier manner. I don't think you'll find any explanation at all by the minister in the Blues as to why the teachers are to be stripped of the protection of the School Act and subjected to this bill. I want that explanation from the minister, and I want it now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister may want to answer the question, but please proceed.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Ho, ho. I'm not going to be intimidated by him, I'll tell you.

MR. D'ARCY: While we were debating the many amendments put forward to section 2, both by the minister and by other members of the House, the Chair repeatedly and correctly made the point that we were only debating the actual proposed amendments. We were not debating the actual subsections. Now we find that the amendments have been passed, and, with all respect, Mr. Chairman, you're trying to say that the subsections have been debated when, in fact, the Chair has been preventing any of those subsections being debated while the amendments were discussed and voted on in the House. I believe the member for Vancouver East and every other member in this House has every right now to debate any subsection and section 2 in general because all members were prevented from debating those sections while the amendments were still being considered by the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me make two observations. The member's point is well taken with respect to the sections as they are listed in the bill; however, I think debate on amendments that the committee passed would be considered repetitive, and with respect to section 2(6) as contained in the bill, I guess that's debate that will be allowed notwithstanding the fact that clearly section 9 also deals with the situation. So you will appreciate my dilemma. Please proceed.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, with the greatest of respect, the second member for Vancouver East is correct. The confusion comes by virtue of the fact that the way these sections are written in our order paper — by the way, this is the first time they've ever been written this way — we come to section 2(7), which is the end of section 2. Section 2.1 is a brand-new section. Therefore the section as amended is now the question before us. The section as amended would provide an opportunity for the second member for Vancouver East to do what he is doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is what I agreed to. I want to advise the committee that, as the minister pointed out, there is also another section that deals with this. We can deal with it anyway. You will appreciate the Chair's situation. Please proceed.

MR. MACDONALD: I would just ask the minister a simple question: what was wrong with the existing safeguards for teacher and public under the School Act?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member argues for special privileges for the teachers. My answer to him a few moments ago was that we are looking for uniformity of application of this legislation across the public sector. I heard the same argument when he came to the public service as well. Various amendments flowed from the opposition benches, suggesting that there should be special recognition of the public service. It strikes me that you are making the same argument now: that there should be special consideration and that they should be the elite in the public sector. I'm saying that this legislation applies equally and consistently across the public sector.

MR. MACDONALD: I appreciate the point the minister has made. Everybody in the public service should be treated equally. But before I make up my mind as to whether all of the standards should be under this bill that we're now debating — Bill 3 — or under the traditional rights those people had, I would like to take a particular case. I am talking about the school teachers in the province of British Columbia. I am asking why they should be stripped of the protection of the School Act because that will help me to understand whether others should also be stripped of the protections that they have in various pieces of legislation. So my question is admittedly about a particular group. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is sitting there. I want to know what was wrong with the existing situation in terms of layoff of teachers and their termination? I am picking a particular group out because that will help me to make up my mind about the rest of the groups too. I agree they should be treated equally. What was wrong with the teachers under the School Act?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: If you look to the provisions of Bill 3, you are going to find a number of items. One refers to skills and qualifications of public sector employees, as many other institutions have public sector employees. Also, there is reference to seniority. If you look to the expressions "qualification" and "seniority," you do find that in the provision of the School Act. However, there is another issue here, and reference is made to the ability to pay. But I think what is important as one of the biggest problems is the one that boards of trustees have had, and something they have been looking for for a long period of time: the ability to handle staff. As a matter of fact, there are only three instances that I know of where in fact staff could be let go. That involved program cancellation, school closure or declining enrolment.

One of the dilemmas which school boards found themselves in was that if there was a program cancellation.... For example, if the program being cancelled was being handled by a very competent, skilled and senior teacher within the district, that particular teacher did not have any protection, nor could the school board offer any protection. There could be somebody with two or three years' experience

[ Page 2676 ]

within the district who, in fact, would rank above that teacher who had perhaps 20 or 25 years of experience. That was one of the problems. So what school districts were in fact looking for was some degree of flexibility whereby they could look for skills and qualifications. Also tied into it, with Bill 3, is the ability to pay, because they, like all other employers, do have some difficulty in meeting their budget requirements. One of the evils of this world is that it often involves a layoff.

I think one of the things that everybody seems to have forgotten, or not caught onto, is this: under Bill 3 there are regulations. Those regulations provide for certain severance payments.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm not particularly interested in those kinds of comments. I think the sincerity and integrity of those people who put those regulations out seem to answer a lot of questions.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm answering this member's question over here. When we're talking about this, we look at the number of years' experience which a teacher has with a particular school district. You will find that the regulations provide additional assistance in the way of a severance package. As a matter of fact, from where I stand, my observation is that they are better off with that than with what can be found under the existing provisions of the School Act.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we're not debating compensation at the moment. How much compensation the severed teacher would get under the School Act or under this act is a separate question.

Is the minister really saying that in the event of layoffs or a school closing the school trustees were powerless? Of course they weren't. They could lay off the teachers. If they needed to keep on mathematics teachers, they wouldn't keep on English teachers, would they? They had that flexibility.

[4:00]

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Of course they did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

MR. MACDONALD: You mean to say an English teacher would be kept on to teach mathematics? That's never happened in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I don't believe that.

Section 2 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 9

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper, sections 2.1 and 2.2. [See appendix.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure the member wants clarification on that.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister moved 2.1 and 2.2. In fact, that would be akin to doing two sections at once. We must debate 2.1. The understanding earlier was that when these sections end up printed in the law, 2.1 will become section 3 and 2.2 will become section 4, and the subsequent sections will also be renumbered. So section 2.1 is a section all by itself

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I agree.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, some hours ago I was informed by the Chairman of the committee that all these subsections under section 2 could not be moved together because of the fact that they were included on one line. I thought it would be the more appropriate method of dealing with the amendments to these subsections of section 2. But the fact that they're individually listed on one line.... It was suggested that I move them all as separate amendments. Now I come to sections 2.1 and 2.2 on one line. I attempt to move that particular amendment standing in my name, and I'm given a different story by you, Mr. Chairman. I have some difficulty fathoming your reasoning on this particular issue, because you seem to have taken a different approach.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think I've had quite enough. The committee is well aware that we have had some concerns this evening with what appears to be a new form of legislative drafting. However, let us examine the sections — plural — as it says: 2.1 and 2.2. The fact that we have a plural noun clearly indicates that we have two of them. Therefore we'll take them one at a time.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Do I withdraw my moving of the two sections together...

[ Page 2677 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we consider that the minister....

HON.MR.CHABOT:...or do we just press on and debate them individually? Will you accept my having moved the two jointly?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're quite happy.

MRS. WALLACE: Dealing with 2.1 of this double-barrelled amendment, I'm not at all happy with the first section of 2.1, and I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman. In line 3 of 2.1(1) I would like to add "lay off" after "terminate," and in line 6 I would like to add "or layoffs" after "terminations," and in line 9 I would like to add "laid off" after "terminated." I so move.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, with the greatest respect, the.... Well, the minister....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Briefly, we had a very substantial debate on the interpretation of "termination" and "layoff." I really can't understand your proposed amendment, because in the interpretation section there are those three significant words, "termination includes layoff." So "layoff" would be applicable here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, your amendment, hon. member, is already in place by virtue of our passing the amendment to section 1. There is no amendment, because the amendment has already been made.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would challenge your ruling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, for crying out loud.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, with the greatest respect — and I must appeal to the committee — we have passed section 1. If the member looks at the amendment to section 1 on the order paper, she will see that it states that " 'terminate' includes lay off." So the amendment as offered by the hon. member for Cowichan–Malahat is now in place. The amendment is not required. Everything the member requires in this proposed amendment is now done.

MR. LAUK: On the proposed amendment, Mr. Chairman, as you may recall, during the debate on section 1 it was pointed out that by adding the definition that "termination" includes " layoff, " you've thrown the whole interpretation of the bill into confusion. All we're trying to do by proposing this amendment to section 2.1 is help eliminate some of that confusion a little bit by making it clear that it includes "layoff." So Mr. Chairman is, I think, clearly wrong in saying that when section 1 includes "'terminate' includes lay off...." Looking at the whole bill without that definition section, it's clear that "termination" means only "layoff," and when it becomes "termination" those sections describe how it becomes "termination." The word "termination" used in the bill is clearly wrong. It flies in the face of the judicial or any other interpretation of "termination." What this does is expand, define and clarify "layoff" for the purposes of this bill. So by adding " 'terminate' includes lay off" we've thrown it into complete confusion; the interpretation of all these sections is in total confusion. In section 2.1, then, we propose amendments that will make it clear, at least in that section, that in exemptions dealing with exceptions we add the term "layoff" to make it absolutely clear.

[4:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I find it very hard to rule on an amendment that's already been passed. It's been sent to the table again.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 6

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

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

On section 2.1.

MR. HOWARD: It seems to me that the section as proposed, regardless of anything else about it, has a defect in it; it is restricting in its application. I am advised by learned counsel that in contracts of employment, as indeed with any other contracts, a verbal contract has the same validity as a written one.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Will the committee come to order.

MR. HOWARD: Therefore the inclusion of the word "written" is restrictive and excludes any verbal contract of employment which might exist. Because the word "written" is narrowing and confining — that's what words are, certainly in terms of law — perhaps the minister would consider removing that particular word.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to accept the suggestion. The information conveyed to me is that most contracts of employment or collective agreements are contracts in writing and not verbal arrangements. I am sure that 99.99 percent are that way.

[ Page 2678 ]

MR. HOWARD: Well, the minister may not be interested in the minority of contracts that are.... His words were that "most of the contracts are written."

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, could the member for Skeena give me one example of a verbal contract that exists in the public sector that would address the question of termination?

MR. HOWARD: I'm glad that the minister asks for additional information. But I really don't need to provide that to him. He himself has already provided it to the committee. The minister said that most of the contracts — as I understood what he said — are written. Somebody is going to contend against that after a while, but he said that most of them are written — not all of them, not 100 percent of them, no exceptions, etc. He just said: "Most of them are written," which means that some of them are not. So the minister already knows the ones that are not; otherwise, why would he make such a statement as that? In order to protect and preserve those that are not written — those verbal contracts that the minister told this committee just a moment ago do exist — by his very statement would mean that we need to move to protect those who are covered by the verbal agreements which the minister himself said exist. Obviously upon reflection the minister will move the appropriate amendment to remove the word that's in there. I'll gladly help the minister in that regard.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I'm not posing a question right at the moment. I know how anxious the minister is to....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I don't mind hurrying up. But isn't that the way we make stupid laws in this province — by people saying: "Hurry up! Do it! Whatever it is you are going to do, do it, so I can either vote for it or vote against it"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The members will come to order. To the section, please.

MR. HOWARD: That's how we end up making laws which are foolish, Mr. Chairman, just by the attitude of the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the amendment, please.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, I am speaking to the amendment. I'm speaking specifically with respect to that word "written." I think the Chair should have been offended by the remarks of the minister: "Hurry up. Hurry up. Get on with the business." It's impatience. Just because the Premier is sleeping his life away in Toronto is no need to get...

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Quit being frivolous and vexatious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The members will come to order.

MR. HOWARD: ...excited about all of this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And the member for Skeena will relate his remarks to the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, if you were listening intently and clearly to what was being said — and you were — I was doing precisely that. But the hon. members opposite want to distract me from my course of action, which is to protect those people that the minister said now have no protection, or won't have any protection, under this particular provision.

I move that section 2.1, line one, be amended by deleting the word "written" so that it would read "2.1(1) where a contract of employment or collective agreement....

[4:30]

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that the member for Skeena is taking advantage of me because of the fact that my first language is French. I might not have the ability to express myself to the same degree as he has, and he is taking advantage of that. Because of that shortcoming, I didn't express myself that clearly.

I do want to say that I am not aware of any verbal contracts that exist in the public sector to which this exemption order might be applicable. Under those circumstances, I am not prepared to entertain or accept the proposed amendment, which is frivolous in nature and time-consuming as well.

MR. HOWARD: The minister doesn't need to degrade himself that way. He's the person, regardless of language, who said that most — not all — of the contracts are written. Then he went on to elaborate and talked about some percentage figure — 99 point something or other percent. He exaggerated the whole thing. Then he fell back on his own inability at language as an excuse for having told the House something, so he claims now, that was improper in the first place or that would have misled the House if the committee wanted to follow in that direction.

Secondly, the record should show that the attempt on our part to protect and to extend the protection of law to verbal contracts was classified by the minister as "frivolous." In his view, any attempt to protect anybody's rights in this province is frivolous; that's what he was saying by so identifying the particular amendment that I put forward. However, the minister wants those opinions in Hansard and wants people to know that he considers any attempt to preserve and protect the rights of people in this province as frivolous. That simply indicates the whole attitude of the government. I thank the minister for revealing the true intent that he has with respect to relationships with people in this province.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that if the minister — and I think this is what he was telling us — is saying that 99.99 percent of contracts are....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: There was a slight correction after that? So if 99 percent....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: All right. What's the percentage, Mr. Minister?

[ Page 2679 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, in response to the member for Skeena, who makes light of this legislation and our attempts to obtain exemption orders for public sector employers and public sector employees to be exempt from the provisions of Bill 3. I guess he has the opportunity. If he doesn't accept this as a good section of this legislation, I guess he has to live with that.

In response to the member for Comox, what I am saying is that there is no need for this proposed amendment from the member for Skeena. I am not aware of any verbal contracts that exist in the public sector to which the exemption order might be applicable, because I am not aware of any verbal contracts that exist in the public sector.

Now the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is waving me to sit down. He is going to give me a little lecture. He's going to give me a lot of that old legalese. That old criminal law court experience is going to flow.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the amendment, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the minister wants a list — he is one, his deputy is another. There are many, many people throughout the civil service who neither come under a collective agreement nor are employed by the Crown by written contract. A contract can either be partially written or partially verbal, but a great many contracts of service with the Crown and through its Crown corporations are not written; they are verbal. Some are partially written and partially verbal. The minister is clearly wrong. I don't think his figure of 99.9 percent is correct. I think a good portion of those people employed by Crown corporations directly and indirectly — consultants and other people, deputies.... An order-in-Council appointment is just an appointment; it's not a contract of service in the sense of being a written contract covering all the terms and conditions of employment. So the minister is clearly not correct and this is a proper amendment by the most distinguished and learned member for Skeena.

MS. SANFORD: I fail to see why the minister would object to including the word "verbal" in this particular amendment. I realize he is getting all this information from his assistant right now, Mr. Chairman, but he told us that as far as he is aware — he corrected himself and said "as far as I am aware" — there are no contracts that are not covered by a written collective agreement. If that is his understanding, what harm is there in including the word "verbal" in case there is one that he has missed somewhere?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is to delete the word "written".

MS. SANFORD: Yes, right, to ensure that it covers verbal contracts as well as written. Contracts, period — verbal and written. I am wondering if the minister could tell us why he would object to including the word "verbal" by eliminating the word "written" from the amendment. Could the minister explain that to us? Why does he object to it? What is harmful?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've answered the member for Skeena, and I'm not about to become tedious and repetitious as I have seen this debate become.

MR. HOWARD: The major reason that he objects is because of its source — nothing to do with the merits of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Partially.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, partially the source....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Maybe Hansard should show that the minister just interjected and said it is partially the source.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, to the amendment, please.

MR. HOWARD: I can understand that. I can understand the prejudice and the bias that exists over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: We need to examine this, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members of the committee will come to order. To the amendment, please.

MR. HOWARD: We need to examine the amendment to delete the word "written" in the context of something other than just simply the government. The proposed amendment by the minister relates to public sector employers and contracts — written as he wants them — of employment with respect to public sector employers. Public sector employers include such things as a library board. Can the minister tell this committee that he knows for sure that no library board has verbal contracts of employment? No, I don't think he can do that. In fact, I don't think the thought that the word "written" in there was confining entered his head until a moment ago. Can the minister guarantee to the committee that every employer, including a thing like the Glendale Lodge Society and even the compensation stabilization commissioner and all of the other employers listed in the schedule — and there are 30 or 40 of them or something of that sort — doesn't have a verbal contract? Can he speak for all hospitals as defined in the Hospital Act? Can he speak of a community care facility as an employer? Can he speak for an institution as defined in the College and Institute Act or the University Act? I am told verbal contracts of employment do in fact exist. We are not just talking about the minister's own tenureship or a deputy minister or somebody else in the provincial government service. We are talking about the whole range of public sector employers seeking a mechanism whereby any benefit of the law that exists or is likely to exist with respect to exemption orders will apply to everybody. That is all we are seeking to do.

Secondly, even if the minister could say with absolute guarantee that he has examined every contract of employment in the whole of the provincial government and in all of the public sector employers as identified in section 1 — the interpretation section — even if he can say without equivocation or without question that all of the contracts were written, that is no guarantee for the future. We are making law for people; we're making law for the future. I think really the

[ Page 2680 ]

minister, upon reflection.... I don't mind about the source. I'll remove my name from the amendment if that is really a problem for the minister and he can put his own name on there and I won't tell anybody. I won't go and say....

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: No, siree, I won't say I put forward this idea. Really the minister did it because he will have the record on his side. I don't really care in that regard. All we are trying to do is develop public law that applies to the public. There is a deficiency in narrowing the concept of contract down to just simply a written one when verbal contracts in fact exist and where verbal contracts may exist in the future. That's what we're talking about.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I will be a little briefer than the member for Skeena. I am not aware of any verbal contracts that exist in the public sector. However, should that very remote possibility be there, then there is nothing preventing those individuals who have a verbal contract and seek to gain an exemption order under this particular legislation from reverting a verbal to a written contract and gaining the exemption without the necessity of this amendment.

MR. HOWARD: I would imagine, Mr. Chairman, by the reverse of that there would be nothing to prevent a person who may have a written contract from transforming it into a verbal one. That's a specious argument the minister is putting forward.

[4:45]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 7

NAYS — 21

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the amendment as proposed by the minister, the member for Cowichan–Malahat.

MRS. WALLACE: Still on 2.1, Mr. Chairman, I have another problem, and that is with subsection (b) of the amendment.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I have a lot of problems when I am in this Legislature with you people over there and the legislation you bring in.

Subsection (b) reads: "...provide fair and equitable procedures," which is certainly normal terminology. It's much-used terminology in contracts and agreements. It's the acceptable terminology. I notice it's also used in subsection (c). But then it goes on in subsection (b) to add something which is not consistent with normal contract language or normal language relative to negotiable matters: "...which are consistent with efficient management." To me that seems to be a phrase that provides for a value judgment on the part of the compensation stabilization officer. The operative phrase there is "fair and equitable procedure." It's the phrase that applies in subsection (c) where you're talking about compensation. Why do you modify subsection (b) with that value judgment phrase, which is really what it is? Who is to decide what is efficient procedure? That is certainly not part and parcel of "fair and equitable procedures." "Fair and equitable" indicates a balance and a degree of understanding and discussion between two parties. But when you put in there "which are consistent with efficient management," that is definitely a value decision on the part, in this instance, of probably the compensation stabilization officer. I would like the minister to tell us just why he is including that particular phrase: "which are consistent with efficient management" in subsection (b) of 2.1(1). Would he comment on that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, in response to the member for Cowichan–Malahat, the commissioner would make that determination.

MRS. WALLACE: Oh, that's no answer, Mr. Chairman. I'm asking him why he's putting that in there. If it's definitely to be a decision by the commission or the commissioner, or whoever, it doesn't indicate to me that that is something that should be in there. We should talk about the same as we do in (c): "...provide fair and equitable compensation to be paid to those employees...." So if we have something in a contract that provides fair and equitable procedures relative to termination, we should have exactly the same wording in (b) as you have in (c).

I would therefore move that in subsection (1)(b) we delete the words "which are consistent with efficient management."

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I just want to speak very briefly on the proposed amendment by the member for Cowichan–Malahat, providing it's in order and providing it's been signed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment isn't signed. One moment, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just speaking to it, before determining whether it's in order or not, really the member apparently doesn't believe in efficient management. I'm alarmed and dismayed at that kind of statement coming from the chief spokesman for the opposition. She's suggesting that the NDP believe in inefficient management rather than efficient management. I'm saying that we in this party firmly believe in efficient management, and that's why we spell it out in this

[ Page 2681 ]

legislation. That proposed amendment completely deviates from the intention of this subsection, Mr. Chairman, and I would suggest that you examine that in light of the few remarks that I've made. Hopefully you'll rule this recommended inefficient management amendment out of order because we don't believe in the kinds of inefficiencies that the socialists are trying to impose on us by this amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the amendment, the member for Cowichan–Malahat.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, is it in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we'll still entertain debate on it. I haven't ruled yet.

MRS. WALLACE: On the amendment, and on the minister's remarks, what I have indicated is that "efficient management" is a value judgment. I'm sure the minister would say this government represents efficient management. That would be his value judgment. And the minister of industrial development, and probably all.... I don't know about the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen); he's not applauding. I would expect their value judgment to be that government is demonstrating efficient management. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there are many other people who would say that that was not correct; that any government that can triple the debt of the province in a short seven years is not demonstrating efficient management.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MRS. WALLACE: Efficient management is a value judgment and I do not believe it has any place in the terminology of subsection (b) of this addition to section 2.

[5:00]

HON. MR. CHABOT: On the same point that the member raises, I have some difficulty with her logic. She seems to have a split — I'm not going to say personality, but a split point of view. She talks about value judgments under subsection (b). When we refer to efficient management she isn't prepared to accept that value judgment there, but then is prepared under subsection (c) to accept the value judgment of "fair and equitable compensation." You can't have it both ways. You either accept the premise of value judgments or you don't; you can't have it both ways. You can't come down on one side in subsection (b) and then come down on the other side in subsection (c) because it satisfies your mind; it addresses different issues. Really, they're both value judgments.

MRS. WALLACE: Subsection (b) is the one that includes efficient management: provide fair and equitable procedures, which are consistent with efficient management. Subsection (c) says: "fair and equitable compensation" — it's the same clause exactly, but doesn't talk about "consistent with efficient management." What I want to do is to make subsection (b) consistent with subsection (c) by taking out that clause. You're arguing against yourself, Mr. Minister. You haven't read your amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the points being made by the opposition, particularly the member for Cowichan–Malahat, are well taken. The minister really should respond to them. The statement in the amendment before us as provided by the minister says, "provide fair and equitable procedures," followed by: "which are consistent with efficient management." What he may be saying, or what may be taken, is that those two statements could be diametrically opposed: "provide fair and equitable procedures," qualified by "consistent with efficient management." Of course, all sorts of ruthlessness, unfairness, inequalities could be involved in that efficiency.

The opening statement of your amendment is: "provide fair and equitable procedures." If you are to provide such equitable procedures, you should at least qualify what you mean by efficient management, because efficiency by management, particularly under some managers, could indeed be very unfair and inequitable. I think if the minister is serious about providing fair and equitable procedures, there is no need to qualify it with the ambiguous and subjective value judgment statement: "consistent with efficient management." That's an incredible qualification, subject to incredible abuse by a government that clearly has not the interest of the public sector at heart, as far as we're concerned. If the government and the minister are serious about providing fair and equitable procedures, they will not need that statement "consistent with efficient management"; they will take that right out of there. I don't think he can answer that.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could bring some of these older members of the House to order.

The minister has been telling this House over the last few weeks that they are introducing all sorts of amendments to try to meet the concerns and the criticisms of people who are deeply concerned about the unfairness....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Listen to these people. Please, Mr. Chairman, provide me some order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me just advise the committee that the amendment is in order. I will ask the second member for Victoria to speak to the amendment — specifically relevant debate.

MR. BLENCOE: I am trying to be as relevant as possible, Mr. Chairman.

If the minister is to convince the many people who are concerned about the methods of your legislation, then it would seem appropriate that vague statements, statements full of value judgment and subject analysis, such as "consistent with efficient management," should be removed from the amendment. I would like the minister to answer as to what he considers efficient management. How is he intending to utilize this particular part that would ensure that the "fair and equitable procedures" of the first statement are used? Perhaps the minister could answer that question.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that of course is very simple — it's to make sure there are no socialists in management positions.

[ Page 2682 ]

I am not prepared to accept the proposed amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: What a ridiculous answer from a minister of the Crown! A serious question about a particular section here, and to have a statement like that! Really, Mr. Minister, you can't be serious at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: We know that was perhaps an off-the-cuff remark and you really want to explain to this House and the people of the province that you indeed do believe in fair and equitable procedures, and that efficient management that could be taken from other jurisdictions such as you might find in undemocratic but efficient societies won't be utilized in the province of British Columbia. Can you assure us, Mr. Minister, that efficient management does not mean using undemocratic principles and processes, which we have clearly seen in much of the intention of this legislation before you did amend it?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, I give you my assurance.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid that I have been sitting here most attentively for I guess it is now upwards of 14 hours. I appreciate that the four members of the opposition in the House at this time have put in perhaps a total of eight hours cumulatively. For some reason they seem to have tried the spurious amendments and now they are getting into totally inane comments. I find the debate is getting to the point where it is certainly of no value, at least in my opinion, and at this time I move that the question be now put.

Question approved on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 5

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

[5:15]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 6

NAYS — 19

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

On the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: You have just seen an example, Mr. Chairman, of why the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) was chosen the other morning...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: ....to be in the chair and manipulate....

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member will take his seat, and all hon. members will relate any remarks in committee to the amendment or to the section before us. Debate in committee is strictly relevant.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: I'm talking about the amendment before us and words contained therein relating to efficient management — do you see the words, Mr. Chairman? "Consistent with efficient management" — I'm talking about the efficient management the other morning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: That gentleman down there participated in it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That debate is out of order. The member will relate his remarks to the amendment before us or discontinue his remarks.

MR. HOWARD: Do you mean, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Skeena continues, with respect to section....

MR. HOWARD: Do you mean to say that the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam can...?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order! Order!

[ Page 2683 ]

MR. HOWARD: Do you mean to say that the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam can go outside of this chamber and make gratuitous, false statements and not be answerable for them?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Is that what you are saying?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Skeena will withdraw the reference to another hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: What was the reference?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The reference was a reflection on the....

MR. HOWARD: Going outside and making false statements?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That was the statement made in the House impugning another member, and the member for Skeena will withdraw the statement.

MR. HOWARD: I'll withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. And now to the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: But it is passing strange that those things can occur...

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the amendment, please.

MR.HOWARD: ...and the villains be protected.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members....

MR. HOWARD: That's exactly what happened, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is no business of the committee, hon. member.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, standing order 43 says: "Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member" — as you have repeatedly in the last few minutes, several times on the same point — "who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition...may direct him to discontinue his speech...." I would suggest that the member for Skeena, in the last few moments, has completely ignored the direction of the Chair and should be advised that if he cannot stay in order, he will be directed to take his place and discontinue his speech.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the point of order is well known to all of us, hon. members, and I will advise all members of the committee that we must be strictly relevant to the amendment before us.

MR. HOWARD: The Chairman is ordering me to sit down and discontinue my speech.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you persist in not speaking to the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: Not if I persist anything — the Minister of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. Any member of the committee will be allowed to speak to the amendment currently before us. Those are the rules of committee. Debate during committee must be strictly relevant to the clause, section or amendment before the committee and I'm sure all hon. members are aware of those standing orders.

The member for Skeena continues on the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: Well, not on the amendment, Mr. Chairman, on the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, you must speak to the....

MR. HOWARD: Just a moment, please....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You must speak to the amendment, please.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, if you would permit me one fraction of a second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a point of order?

MR. HOWARD: Yes, that's exactly what I am dealing with. The point of order raised by the Minister of Health was very clearly put, and Your Honour responded to it in a favourable way. I take it, therefore, that you were ordering me to sit down and discontinue my speech. I will obey the Chairman's preventing logical and orderly debate in the House by issuing that kind of instruction.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the opposition have nothing further to offer on this amendment, as they are putting forward silly little amendments and arguing about everything else. Therefore I move that the question be now put.

[5:30]

Question approved on the following division:

YEAS — 24

[ Page 2684 ]

NAYS — 7

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is: shall the amendment on the order paper...? The member for Skeena on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: What amendment are you talking about?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was just about to state that, hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All hon. members will contain themselves, thank you.

The question is the amendment on the order paper standing under the name of the Provincial Secretary, section 2.1.

Section 2.1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 24

NAYS — 7

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the amendment 2.2, the member for Comox.

MS. SANFORD: I'd like some clarification from the minister with respect to this particular section. The section tells us that the government can still fire with cause, as provided for under the master agreement. Unlike the provisions of this act that we're debating at the moment, this amendment says that the government, or public sector employers, can still fire if they have cause. I assume that refers, for instance, as far as the BCGEU is concerned, to section 10.02 of the master agreement. What I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, is the reason that the minister has for saying that this act does not apply in cases where a public sector employer fires with cause. Presumably that's what he's referring to in that section — that a public sector employer still has the right to terminate under the existing collective agreement, and in this case the B.C. Government Employees' Union.... I refer the minister to section 10.02. Why is it necessary to ensure that the rest of this act doesn't apply in those cases?

[5:45]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Comox is confusing the issue. I don't know why, but maybe she doesn't understand the difference between cause and just cause. Really, the provisions of the collective agreement allow dismissal for just cause. This legislation addresses the question of cause: cause for economic or reorganizational reasons within the government. There's a very substantial difference between cause and just cause. This section really talks about no pre-existing right to terminate being affected. So essentially what it is says is.... This section makes it clear that the termination powers granted to public sector employers under section 2.1 are permissive and that any existing powers or rights a public sector employer now has to terminate the employment of its employees, whether pursuant to the provisions of a collective agreement or at common law, are not suspended by this act. Section 2(l) empowers an additional power of termination. It allows the employer to continue to use any effective downsizing mechanism they already have in place. So we're saying....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, that's right. Where a public sector employer has the ability to lay off employees because of the lack of work or for any other particular reason, then those particular conditions....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Don't confuse just cause with ability to downsize, as B.C. Hydro has done in recent months, or in the last year or so where B.C. Hydro has the ability within its collective agreement to lay off certain employees within its structure. But it doesn't address the question of just cause. Just cause is an issue of dismissal for just cause, not cause. This one here says that we're not going to tamper with any pre-existing rights, such as exist at B.C. Hydro, that have the right to lay off and to downsize their organization. We're saying that those particular provisions that exist in the collective agreement will continue to be valid and continue to be in existence. Very simple.

MS. SANFORD: Is the minister telling me that this section does not apply to dismissal? Because terminate includes layoff. There's no doubt about that; we had some debate about that earlier. Surely if the minister looks at 10.02 of the master agreement for the BCGEU and the government, he will see that employees can be fired for just cause; terminated for just cause; dismissed for just cause. Is the minister trying to tell us that there is a difference between terminate and dismiss? If an employee is dismissed for just cause, he's terminated. Am I not correct, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, let me say that I don't know if the member doesn't understand, or whether she's attempting to muddy the issue. What I'm saying is that no one can be terminated under this legislation for just cause. The

[ Page 2685 ]

causes for which people can be terminated are spelled out in the legislation. Just cause, which is spelled out in the collective agreement, pertains to something substantially different. It deals with a failure, in many instances, of the employee — where the employee has habitually demonstrated poor work habits, as an example, or where the employee has demonstrated violence at the workplace on some other individual. Those are just causes for dismissal. No one under this legislation can be terminated for just cause — just cause as is described in the collective agreement. They can be terminated. I'm not going to go back through the whole legislation; you probably weren't present when I talked about the kind of causes under section 2(l) of the legislation. I'm just saying that just cause as described in the collective agreement does not pertain to this legislation. It's separate and distinct and addresses completely different issues.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the minister made a good point when he said this entire issue was canvassed many times on previous sections of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you keep that in mind when calling that member to order in regard to repetition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With respect to termination and that line of debate, the Chair recognizes that it has been canvassed to some great length. However, there is a new principle here in this section, and I would ask if the member could speak to that. I don't believe I've heard anything yet.

MS. SANFORD: The point is that this section exempts the employers from the provisions of this bill, and puts the employers back onto the written collective agreement that that employer has with the employees. Terminate, under the regular collective agreement, means dismissal as well, with just cause. Dismissal with just cause is the same as terminate, in my view. Now I hope that the minister agrees with me on that: terminate and dismissal with just cause are one and the same. Once that employee is dismissed with just cause, he is terminated. He's finished. He's out. No provisions for recall, no provisions under the usual layoff provisions.

So what I'm asking the minister is: since this section exempts the employers from the provisions of this act and allows the employers to use the regular collective agreement, why is it necessary under the dismissal provisions to have the public sector employer exempt from this act? That's what section 2.2 does. It exempts the public employer from the provisions of this act if it utilizes the regular dismissal termination provisions that are contained within the regular collective agreement. Why does that employer have to be exempted?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, what we're saying here is really that there's no pre-existing right to terminate affected. That's the heading of this particular section. Maybe I'd better explain it this way. Contained within the collective agreement of the BCGEU and the government there is a provision for dismissal for just cause for a variety of reasons, for the dismissal of an employee — or call it terminate if you so desire. There are many collective agreements that contain other reasons for layoffs. Layoffs are provided within the collective agreement, which allows a public sector employer to downsize his operation. Never mind the just cause; that'll continue to be there where an employee must be dismissed for just cause. We're saying that where the employer has provisions of layoff, where he has the mechanism for downsizing within his organization, then these rights to terminate, which includes layoff, are not affected.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, this is another section that is going to cause some difficulty in interpretation, and I want to get it clarified. It is unusual, and, indeed, it could be found to be most unfair and probably ultra vires the Legislature to say that at common law the employer retains his right but the employee does not. That's what section 2.2(l) does.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That's right. You're saying nothing in this act impairs, alters or affects a right that a public sector employer has to terminate the employment of an employee. That's just one-sided.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: No, it isn't, because of "pursuant to the provisions of a collective agreement or common law." He has no rights pursuant.... First of all, anyone laid off must follow the compensation sections of this bill and the regulations concerning compensation and rehiring and so on. So the employee is bound by the provisions of this bill, but section 2.2 gives an alternative to the employer. In other words, the employer can use whatever "downsizing mechanism," says the minister. That sounds to me very much like the expression used in Vietnam, "antipersonnel device"; that was a bomb.

So this section is unfair. I think it goes against the tenets of natural justice to give all those rights to an employer and take away the rights of the employee. I don't think that's possible. You can't say "at common law"; that you're still going to give the rights to an employer that he has "at common law" — that is, judge-made law — and expect a judge to believe you or to follow that. That's nonsense. He's going to confer the rights on both parties, and if he confers the rights on both parties at common law, then the rights of compensation in lieu of notice, damages, loss of reputation, and all of those factors in equity and common law will be applied by section 2.2. You're attempting by the bill to take it out of the common law area, and by 2.2 you're putting it back into the common law area. So this is another example of very peculiar draftsmanship and lack of thought as to what the result of section 2.2 will be.

You know that no arbitrator will allow even the Legislature to take away those kinds of rights unless it's expressly stated that a new set of rights, duties and obligations are provided for. I thought the attempt of this bill was to eliminate the body of contract labour law and common law for the specific purposes of this act and outline what will take its place through the act and through the regulations that have now been produced. Now along comes section 2.2. What the hell does that mean? It means that we're going to take it out of contract labour law and out of common law, except that if the employer feels like it, he can use his rights under contract and common law, but the employee cannot. That is what section 2.2 says. It is unfair, it is against natural justice, and it won't be enforceable. It impugns and endangers the other sections of this bill.

[ Page 2686 ]

[6:00]

HON. MR. CHABOT: I have thoroughly responded on a couple of occasions to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). I would have hoped that it had sunk in by now. But on this and what it essentially does, I guess I can put it in the briefest way to the member for Vancouver Centre. It prevents interference with the collective agreement when certain conditions have been met. I don't know if the member is suggesting that a collective agreement does not convey certain benefits to an employee. He is attempting to suggest that a collective agreement, or this particular section which addresses the question of collective agreement, only benefits the employer. A collective agreement contains many benefits that flow to employees. What we're saying here is that when certain conditions are met, the collective agreement will not be affected.

MR. LAUK: That would be fine, but that is not what the section says. The section says: "Nothing in this act impairs, alters or affects a right that a public sector employer has to terminate the employment of an employee...." If that is going to make any sense at all, it can only be interpreted as conferring an extra right upon an employer, because the whole bill is designed to take both parties out of the collective agreement and common law and set up new rights, duties and obligations between those parties under this statute. However, section 2.2 says: "But in case the employer feels like it...." We're saying that doesn't alter his right to terminate an employee under a collective agreement or common law — for just cause, I presume, or under any other provision for layoff. Section 2.2 says that the whole public restraint act doesn't apply. There is nothing in section 2.2 that says downsizing only in the sense of layoffs. It also means firing for just cause and termination, because there are provisions in collective agreements for dismissal for cause. There are also provisions in common law for dismissal for cause, or without cause. What flows from that? The rights and duties between the parties. I think section 2.2 is a disaster for you. How is the court going to apply this bill when 2.2 is an escape clause?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: "Fairness and equity" is nonsense. Either the court will say that 2.2 is totally unenforceable and sever it from the bill, or it will say that it indicates a completely contrary intention on the part of the Legislature and say that the bill is unenforceable. With respect, I think the minister has been receiving very bad advice. We should reject section 2.2.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a question for the minister. The member for Comox talked about the clause in the agreement that deals with termination for just cause. This particular section says the public sector employer has to terminate the employment of an employee pursuant to the provisions of a collective agreement. Because "terminate" in this piece of legislation includes "lay off," is the section in the agreement which deals with procedures for layoffs when there is lack of work and so on also covered by this amendment, where you can use that section in lieu of this? Is the layoff section also included here?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, that's correct.

MRS. WALLACE: Then my concern is: when are you going to use this section? If you have a termination section in the agreement — dismissal for just cause — and you have a section in the agreement that covers layoff procedures, on what occasions are you actually going to use the sections that are in this piece of legislation that are not excluded? When are you not going to use the agreement? I just don't understand what we're doing here, Mr. Chairman. We're writing a piece of legislation that's not going to be used.

It's interesting to note that the two members for Surrey are both in the land of Nod, along with two cabinet ministers doing the people's business.

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 7

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

On section 3.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm concerned about this particular section because under this regulations take such terrific precedence over any collective agreement. I think we should understand what a collective agreement is. A collective agreement is something that is mutually agreed to and signed by both parties. It seems to me completely contrary to the whole concept to then bring in by legislation something that overrides a mutually agreed contract. I would therefore move an amendment to this section which would amend subsection (1) to read, before the first words: "Where there is no collective agreement in force, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations that he considers...." I so move, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will not make a decision at this point. Without prejudice, the Provincial Secretary may debate....

HON. MR. CHABOT: After having briefly considered the proposed amendment by the member, in my view it completely negates the intention of this section, and therefore would be out of order.

[6:15]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that that is a decision for you and your officers, not the minister, to make. I think the minister has overlooked the point that I

[ Page 2687 ]

made in introducing the amendment, that he or his agents, as representatives of government, have every right and responsibility to negotiate a mutually agreeable collective agreement — a contract — that he signs. This is something that is acceptable to himself and to the government, or else he wouldn't sign it. To bring in a section of this bill which completely overrides that mutually agreed-to contract seems to me to be a complete contravention of the whole concept. Why bother to bargain? So you're going to have either this or collective agreements. I don't think you can have both. My amendment proposes that where there is a collective agreement, the terms of that collective agreement stand — mutually agreed-to terms, mutually acceptable, mutually signed — and where there is no collective agreement, then the terms of this apply. But if you have that agreement, mutually agreeable, mutually signed, then it should not be overridden by another piece of legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the amendment fails because it infringes upon the prerogative of the Crown.

Is that your ruling?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to challenge it.

The House resumed; Mr. Kempf in the chair.

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

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 7

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

On section 3.

MRS. WALLACE: I had intended to move two more amendments on the same basis to subsections (2) and (3). The one I moved was to section 1, and it has been ruled out of order. I'm not going to move them and challenge the Chair again, as much as I might like to, because it would be repetitious. But I would like to point out that in subsection (2) exactly the same points could be made as were made in subsection (1). It is necessary to ensure that if a collective agreement is in place, that should apply and not section 3(2). The designation of groups or individuals for terminations should be set by bargaining where there is a collective agreement. This is the point that I think we have to make very clear from this side of the House; we are extremely concerned about what can happen if that is not the case. I was somewhat surprised to hear the minister respond — some hour and a half ago — to a question, relative to efficient management, that it precluded any socialists being involved. This is what we have been saying could well be the whole purpose of this piece of legislation. Now it has come out. In the small hours of the morning he has admitted that this is really what this is all about — that the criteria that can be used are what your political affiliations are. That is what the minister has admitted to. And if there were....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: That's exactly what he said. Our concern is very real. You have to have some protection relative to your rights of political or religious freedom. It was the political freedom that came out in the minister's remark. As I say, I'm not going to move this amendment, because I'm sure that the Chairman, in his wisdom, would rule it out of order. I don't want to repeat the challenge on the same ruling on the same type of thing. But I have to make my point. I have some real concerns about the minister being allowed to establish criteria to be applied within a unit into which employees have been designated for the purpose of determining which employees in the unit will have their employment terminated.

The minister has indicated that he has no time for socialists, that they're not good managers, that they're not efficient. We can well see the colour of the party card that you carry being exactly what determines whether or not you remain working in the public service. It's the pork-barrel at its very worst. The minister has stood up in this House and let slip that that's exactly what this is all about. Our concern on section 3 is very real.

[6:30]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the only conditions under which an individual can be terminated from the public sector are spelled out in the legislation very clearly. I'm not going to repeat them to you, because they've been debated amply over the nightfall. The member throws out a red herring. When I talked about inefficient management I was relating to those inefficient years between 1972 and 1975 when you had socialist management here in British Columbia, which was inefficient indeed. I made the comparison between management by this government and the management by the NDP between 1972 and 1975. That's what I was referring to and not to anything else. The member can float all the red herrings across the trail she wants, but she'll never deviate from what I was attempting to say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have to respond. That member is attempting to mislead with statements she makes about my intention. I want to clarify that the only circumstances under which an individual can be terminated are spelled out in the legislation.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order. The minister has indicated that I am attempting to mislead. I think that is an unparliamentary remark and I would like him to withdraw it.

[ Page 2688 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: That point of order is well taken. I'll ask the minister to withdraw any unparliamentary motive attributed to another member. Please withdraw.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, there were no unparliamentary motives attributed. I didn't say she was deliberately misleading.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister withdraws. One more point....

MRS. WALLACE: No, he hasn't withdrawn.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Either she wasn't here when I made my point....

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. The minister has withdrawn. But at this point the Chair must intervene for two reasons: we are discussing phraseology that was discussed in a previous section of this bill; secondly, we are now engaging in second reading debate under this section. Under both terms the debate now advanced by the minister is unacceptable in committee.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I wanted to have that opportunity, Mr. Chairman, of clarifying the erroneous statements made by the member for Cowichan–Malahat on the terms and conditions under which people can be terminated. They are clearly spelled out in the act.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the minister can weave, dodge and dance all he wants, but the fact remains that this section leaves open the opportunity for a government to form a political hit-list. It's not enough to say that you can pass regulations. Regulations can be changed at the whim of cabinet, in the secrecy of cabinet.

MR. MOWAT: You said that before.

MR. LAUK: I haven't said that before, you twit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, that has been said many times before.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the great difficulty that some of the members opposite are having with debate is that they are seldom present in the House. They come in and revisit points that have been canvassed many times before. In this particular case, Mr. Chairman, it isn't just points that have been canvassed earlier this evening extensively under previous sections when these members were not turning up at the House; they also have been extensively canvassed during 168 hours during second reading when this bill was under debate. Call them to order, please, Mr. Chairman, now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair was doing that, hon. member. I will advise the member now taking his place in debate that the argument he is advancing has been dealt with at some length. Standing order 43 advises us that we cannot repeat our own arguments, or arguments made by other members.

MR. LAUK: I find it the highest possible insult from the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications to suggest that I would repeat anybody's argument.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the records will show that the debate has been well canvassed.

MR. LAUK: My arguments are always original, creative, fresh and hot off the press. For example, the following....

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the section.

MR. LAUK: The point that has to be made, and made most strongly, is that the minister has not satisfied the committee that subsections of section 3 afford sufficient protection to a civil servant who may be terminated by the cabinet or a member of cabinet for political, racial, religious or other beliefs that that person may have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the section, please.

MR. LAUK: Well, that's what I am saying. What protection have these people got under this section, except the minister saying: "Trust me"? For example, take subsection (5), which says: "For the purposes of the regulations, but without limiting the generality of subsections (1) and (2)...." In other words, what they're saying is that subsection (5) is just for laughs. All that means is that the criteria referred to in subsection (2) may include skills, abilities, qualifications of employees, operational requirements and efficiency, seniority of employees and seniority provisions of the collective agreement. It may include these things and will not limit any of the generality that is apparent in the other two subsections. There is no protection at all for an individual. This minister and his government can form a political hit-list and run around using gestapo tactics to investigate civil servants.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. LAUK: What's the problem?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That argument has been advanced many times, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Has the word "gestapo" been advanced? Because that opens a whole new field....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure it has, hon. member. Now, please, are there any new...?

MR. LAUK: Now you're not sure. You see, Mr. Chairman, you're just tired. You're saying that you're sure it has.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I distinctly remember "gestapo tactics." The member is not only out of order but he's being arrogant and dilatory. He's telling us he's producing new material when in effect he is plagiarizing, shamelessly, points that have previously been canvassed extensively by many members in his own party. If the member would occasionally attend the House, he would be aware of the arguments put forth by his colleagues opposite and, I might say, shot down by the minister.

[ Page 2689 ]

Mr. Chairman, if he has not got anything to offer to this debate, he should be advised to take his place.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, anybody who can't even do up his own shirt and buttons....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. The member for Vancouver Centre will take his place momentarily.

Standing order 43 is explicit, and was explained to the committee many times last night and this morning. It advises committee members that in fact we cannot be repetitious in our arguments — either in our own arguments or the arguments by other members.

Please be seated.

MR. LAUK: Are you filibustering this?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member persists, the Chairman will ask him to discontinue. I will ask the second member for Vancouver Centre to advance new material to section 3.

MR. LAUK: I have never been asked to discontinue a speech before in this chamber. That would be arbitrary. You know that you're not going to do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the second member for Vancouver Centre on debate on section 3.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that you're tired, but these idle threats.... I've never been ordered to discontinue a speech before, and I'll tell you something: I have been out in the office and I've been supervising the halls and so on. I've been hearing the debates going on in this chamber, and I have not repeated an argument that's been made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the section, please.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'm dealing with the point of order that you allowed to be canvassed and that you dealt with just now. I'm saying that I have not repeated any arguments under section 3 that have been made prior to this evening's debate. I have been here, and I am raising arguments specifically under section 3. Section 3 was not considered by this committee prior to my arrival here this evening, so the statement by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications is false. Mr. Chairman, you have immediately responded to that statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That will have to be withdrawn.

MR. LAUK: I didn't say that it was advertently false.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I find it offensive, hon. member. Will you just withdraw.

MR. LAUK: Well, his statement was incorrect, then. I withdraw "false" and use the statement "incorrect."

HON. MR. McGEER: It is not incorrect.

MR. LAUK: It is incorrect. He can't even do up the buttons of his shirt collar.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we've discussed the points of order. To the section, please.

MR. LAUK: Well, if you defend me from these interruptions I can get on to the section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: What I was saying is that the minister has not satisfied this committee. The questions can be repeated in committee, but the answers have to be responsive to the questions. The committee has a right to know the minister's intention. We've looked at the regulations. These regulations can be changed at any time; why is it not in the legislation in order to protect people from political, racial and other prejudices because of their beliefs? What if this government decides they're not going to hire East Indians next week? There's nothing in there to protect these people. We heard the minister say that he gave an explanation about socialists in power; he was really referring to 1972-75, that period of time when the NDP administration was responsible for Vietnam, world recession, cancer, halitosis....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, when the minister embarked on that line of debate, the minister was called to order, and I now call the member to order. Please, to the section.

MR. LAUK: I'm just responding to his explanation of why he used the word "socialist" when saying....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister was called to order during that explanation. To the section.

MR. LAUK: All right, I appreciate that.

Section 3(4) says: "A regulation under subsection (1) may, in respect of employees...authorize the employer to reassign, relocate or reclassify any employee." A certain amount of that kind of prerogative left to the supervisor, the employer, the government, is absolutely necessary, and probably long overdue in many respects. But without some definite protections, the use of this to force people who are politically undesirable, let's say, out of the civil service is a very easy process to undertake. And subsection (5) as well is only a permissive section; it's not in any way an obligation upon the Crown to protect the rights of these individuals. I would ask that the minister reconsider at least subsection (4) of section 3. Consider either deleting it or providing to the committee some kind of commitment that provides for protection of individual civil servants. I'd ask that the minister consider either actually withdrawing subsection (4), or providing some amendment that will protect the civil servant from arbitrary government action.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Chairman, I've been sitting here most of the evening and I think we're now into our fifteenth hour of this supposed debate. It's very tedious, it's repetitious, and we've canvassed the points over and over again.

MR. LAUK: What have you contributed?

[ Page 2690 ]

MR. MOWAT: At least I've been here, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: So have I.

MR. MOWAT: You've not been. You talked about walking the hallways and so on, but some of us have been sitting in here. Just look at the vote recordings; you've not been here. You're not representing your citizens at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The House will come to order.

MR. MOWAT: We have canvassed this point over and over again. Mr. Chairman, I would move that the question be now put.

[6:45]

Question approved on the following division.

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 7

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

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 7

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

On section 4.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 4(l) standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I haven't spoken in this debate this morning....

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't spoken all night.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, boy, you'd better read Hansard. You've got about 12 minutes, and I've got something like 42 hours.

MR. REID: It seems like more than that.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, look, the member for Surrey woke up. Finally got out of the sack, rolled out of his little cot. Pushed out by his Teddy bear, no doubt.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the amendment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I do want to speak to this amendment. It's a rather serious amendment, and I'm going to ask the minister a few questions. I know he will answer because he's been up and down all night trying to answer some of the questions; he's not doing too well at some of the answers, but he's been trying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Don't say "Order," Mr. Minister; I'm perfectly in order so far.

What we have here is an amendment that really could be termed a whitewash amendment. I think the government brought this amendment in — the minister specifically — to appease, hopefully, the unions. But they brought this amendment in without discussing the matter with the unions.

I'm going to talk to you for a while, Mr. Chairman, or maybe to the House Leader, because the minister is busily engaged in doing I don't know what. Now he's free. We'll start again.

I call this amendment the whitewash amendment; that's exactly what it is.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, definitely. And I'm going to tell you why, Mr. House Leader, in a few minutes.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I didn't hear what he said, but it's just as well, Mr. Chairman.

This is a whitewash amendment, and I call it that because first of all, this amendment was brought in by the government as a whitewash without consultation with the people affected, in order to placate some of the people out there who are concerned about the bill as a whole. But we're discussing an amendment to the bill. I believe that's why this amendment was brought in. I've got a couple of questions; I might as well get them all down and then he can answer all of them.

[ Page 2691 ]

I'd like to know from the minister if he consulted with the people who are being affected in regard to this amendment that the minister has just moved in this House. I believe and suspect he did not. Certainly the information I have is that he did not consult at all. Secondly, part of this amendment deals with the government, which, through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, "shall appoint one of the members as chairman," etc. What I'm saying here is jobs for the boys. This is what I'm suggesting to the minister right now. The minister shall....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, that's right. That's close.

What I'm suggesting to you is that the moneys to be paid out under this section, the "without cause" part, really have me a bit confused, and I wonder if the minister could possibly answer those two little questions. Then we'll carry on with the section we're discussing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member has been in the House now for three hours. Over the course of last evening the questions he is putting to me were put by other members: a member who was here earlier in the evening and another member who arrived after the other shift came on. I've had to repeat my answer to this on two separate occasions, and very thoroughly. If the member's really interested in the answer dealing with the question of consultation he should read the Blues, or read Hansard when it comes out. I've responded in full detail in reply to questions put to me first by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). Very thoroughly. I'm not sure if it was the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) who put the question again, to which I responded again. There were two members over there who put the question to me. I feel hesitant to once again become repetitious on this particular subject.

The member talks about jobs for the boys. I really don't know what he's talking about, because there's nothing in this section that pertains to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Also, I would advise the committee that we are discussing an amendment which, in fact, deletes a phrase, and that is the principle of the part of this amendment before us now.

[7:00]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I will accept part of the rebuke from the minister, believe it or not, this time, because he was partially right in terms of the amendment that we are discussing, and I'll accept that because I'm going to repeat these statements a bit further on in this debate. However, the part I don't accept is the part about being in the House. The fact is — and if the minister would check Hansard he'll find — that I and most of my colleagues over the last 24-hour period, at least since 2 p.m. yesterday, have been on record as voting in this House. I don't accept that rebuke from the minister, and in fact our record in this House as an opposition is far, far superior to the empty benches....

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Look at all the empty benches over there. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, section 4(4). [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

On section 4 as amended.

MRS. WALLACE: I see there are further amendments here, 4.1 and 4.2. Are you going to deal with them separately?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, hon. member. They will take position as new sections.

Section 4 as amended approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, with your previous ruling that the two sections will be dealt with separately, I move section 4.1 and section 4.2 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just so we have some clarification there: both motions have been moved, 4.1 and 4.2, but they will be dealt with separately, and we will be allowed to vote on them separately, as was done in a previous instance where these numbers and this order were used.

On section 4.1.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment to the amendment, a subamendment to section 4.1(1), which reads: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall appoint members to the review panel." I would like to add the words: "subject to the approval of the bargaining agent for the employee whose termination is to be reviewed by the panel." My reason for doing so is that it would make this review panel parallel to an arbitration board, to be set up in the same manner.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before ruling, and without prejudice, the member for Comox continues.

MRS. SANFORD: The minister is up, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. CHABOT: If somebody could read that particular amendment to me again.... I think it has to do with the approval of the individual affected, or words to that effect. Am I correct?

MRS. WALLACE: Subject to the approval of the bargaining agent for the employee who has been terminated, which would make it parallel to the appointment of an arbitration board.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I find that the proposed amendment really interferes with the review panel we're attempting to put into place. We're attempting to put into place a review panel of experts, people who are knowledgeable in the field of arbitration, people....

MRS. WALLACE: Biased.

[ Page 2692 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: We're talking about neutral people, and people who have industrial relations expertise as well. Those are the kinds of people to be appointed, and if you want to prejudge the appointments and make those kinds of unfair comments about the kinds of impartial people we're attempting to seek for this important review panel, I think that's absolutely disgraceful.

Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment by the member for Cowichan–Malahat is certainly not acceptable to me or to the government. It interferes with our ability to bring into place an impartial and knowledgeable review panel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Further, the amendment is out of order because it does impinge upon the prerogative of the Crown, and I so rule.

MR. BLENCOE: I challenge that ruling.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 7

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

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

On section 4.1.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I want to be absolutely correct this time. We are on 4.1 under "Review panel."

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right, not 4(l). If anyone appreciates the way you're confused, I do, I can assure you.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for clarification, particularly to the minister, who was looking at me rather quizzically — and no wonder! — on that last 4.1 section, and just for the sake of Hansard, in case somebody should happen to read this a hundred years from now, I want Hansard and the House to know that the way these sections are numbered, I thought we were discussing 4.1 and we were not discussing 4.1, we were discussing 4.1.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, 4(l).

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yeah, I gotcha. So anyway, I think the minister may have made a mental note of the previous questions that I'd asked under this amendment 4.1, and the questions were very straightforward. He didn't answer my questions under the last amendment, and I don't blame him for that. I don't blame him, because they were the wrong questions — under the wrong amendment. But I'm asking the minister now if he did consult with the people affected by this amendment. I won't go through my last speech again.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, I've got a little more. We'll get them down here.

It is the amendment we refer to as the whitewash amendment. I do believe the minister and the government hopefully brought this amendment in to appease the literally more than 200,000 people who could be affected.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No. Rubbish.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, it's quite possible, Mr. Minister. You say "no" across the floor, but it's quite possible, in my view. I want to know how these people on this review panel are going to be appointed or chosen. Who's going to make the decision? Are they going to be friends of the government? Old political hacks? Leftovers?

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You hope so? Are you looking for a job, Mr. Member?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister across the floor, in his interjection, answered my second question: the answer is yes, political hacks are going to be paid — that's one of my other questions — high salaries to do the bidding of the minister and just fire left, right and centre, without regard for the collective bargaining agreement. That's what's going to happen. You wait and see. I'm making that charge. The minister's answer in his interjection across the floor as much as said that a couple of minutes ago.

One of my other questions, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, is: what's their salary? How many people are going to be on this panel? How many people do you anticipate may be on this panel, and what will their salaries be?

[7:15]

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to refute some of the wild allegations made by the member from Powell River.

First of all, he says that 200,000 people could be affected by this review panel. That's sheer nonsense, absolute rubbish, and an absolute exaggeration. You know, you weren't here, Mr. Member — and I hate repeating what I've already said in the night-time — but really, some people were suggesting that 250,000 families could possibly be affected by this legislation. In other words, if that is going to be the case, then all the prisons in British Columbia are going to close, all

[ Page 2693 ]

the hospitals in British Columbia are going to close, all the schools in British Columbia are going to close, and all the provincial government public service people are going to be terminated. That's what you're essentially attempting to say. Now you know and I know and everybody else knows that that's sheer rubbish.

The member makes reference to the type of people who will be appointed to this particular panel. He talks about political hacks, and I guess he remembers the days between 1972 and 1975 when he makes that reference, because never in the history of this province have there been so many political appointees as in the days the NDP were government between 1972 and 1975.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll call the minister to order. We are on section 4.1, and....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Really, Mr. Chairman, it won't be politicized the way it was between 1972 and 1975. The kind of people we're going to engage for this particular endeavour, for this review panel — this fast-tracking mechanism, I should say — are people who are knowledgeable in the field of arbitration and in the field of industrial relations.

Was there consultation? Yes, there was some input. There was concern expressed that the previous amendment we had in the legislation dealing with judicial review would be a slow and cumbersome mechanism. The first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) also made that point during second reading of this legislation, that the judicial review mechanism we had in place would block the court system and would not really.... He was suggesting, really, that justice delayed is justice denied. So because of that particular argument put forward by him and other people in British Columbia, we decided to look at the appointment of knowledgeable people in the field of arbitration and in the field of industrial relations to ensure that a review panel is in place without denying access to the final tribunal, the judicial review.

So if an individual who is terminated feels wronged by that termination, he then has access to appeal to the review panel, and the review panel has broad powers: powers of reinstatement, powers of compensation and of that nature. However, if the individual feels that the review hasn't been beneficial, then he or she still has the right to appeal. It's a mechanism that's been carefully thought out. It's a mechanism that I'm sure will address the needs and concerns of the public servants of British Columbia in the event that there's a need for the use of this particular mechanism.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the minister's answer — he answered questions I didn't even ask, but that's all right — I do take exception to the minister's opening remarks regarding the number of people.... I didn't say 250,000 people would be fired, quite obviously. What I did say was that any one of those 249,000 employees could be affected by this particular section. Well, they will obviously be affected by the whole act, but we don't know who the government is considering terminating. They don't call it firing. They are terminated; it's different than being fired. When you're terminated you're out of a job, but when you're fired you no longer have a job. That's the difference. I just wanted to clear that up for the edification of the minister.

However, the minister didn't answer a couple of questions. He didn't answer the question: how much are these people going to be paid and how many of them are there going to be? I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, in spite of what the minister just said, that they will be political hacks, people who have either contributed or worked in some way for the Social Credit Party. That's the type of person who will be on this panel, in my view. The minister didn't clear up that question. He just said they would be people knowledgeable in their field. Field of what? I don't believe that. The record of this government in terms of patronage is one of the worst records of any government in Canada, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Order!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, it's absolutely true. You're asking the Chairman to call me to order, but it's.... Mr. Minister of Forests, your record is about the worst in Canada in this century for political patronage, and you know it. Furthermore, this legislation that you're now ramming through this House in the small hours of the morning....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You're ramming it through this House, with closure after closure.... After 112 years without closure in this province on a substantive motion, we've had closure here — what? — about six or seven times this evening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! To the amendment, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, what I'm asking the minister.... Well, what I'm telling the minister is that this section will further enhance the government's ability to hire political hacks. If there's any tinge of social democracy on the person, they'll not be hired. I believe that people who hold a card in our political party will be terminated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: They will be, under this section. Mark my words.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The committee will come to order. The member is clearly embarking upon principles that would be better addressed during second reading, which has passed. Specifically to the amendment, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The two questions, then, that the minister didn't answer are: how many people does he think may be on that panel, and what will their salaries be?

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take exception to the member making reference to political hacks. However, that seems to be an obsession with him and some members across the way, because we know how they politicized the public service and the number of hacks that they hired when they were government between 1972 and 1975.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member, that line of debate has been ruled out of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's been ruled out of order, but the member has persisted with that line of questioning. I have a responsibility to refute those feeble

[ Page 2694 ]

arguments and that obsession he has with political hacks — and I can understand why he has an obsession with it.

But, Mr. Chairman, in response to the questions that he puts about the review panel, let me say that the review panel — and he seemed to be confused about the kind of background that these people will possess.... These people will be people who are knowledgeable in the field of arbitration. I'll repeat that: they will be knowledgeable in the field of industrial relations. There will be one chairman on the review panel. There will also be part-time members who will be on call. Those part-time members will get normal per diems.

However, I have some difficulty with telling you what the salary of these individuals will be, because first of all you must recognize that when you're going to engage or employ someone, the salary that's to be paid is subject to negotiation. Maybe if I were to say a flat dollar figure at this time, we might have some difficulty attracting people who have predetermined what they will be paid. So this is a matter for negotiation, and we'll attempt to negotiate the best bargains for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister really didn't answer my question. I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that there will be many, many people, from time to time, appointed to this panel, and that not one of them will receive under $50,000 a year plus expenses in this time of restraint. I think the government — not the minister — is being a bit hypocritical. Here they are laying off literally thousands of long-time employees....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, it's under this section.

They're saying they're going to have an opportunity to appear before this panel. Here the government is, laying off, terminating — firing is the correct word....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, they use the word "termination" in the bill. The word out there is if you're fired, you're fired. They're firing thousands of...

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is second reading debate.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: ...employees, and there are going to be some high-priced political hacks hired by that minister to oversee this....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Those arguments have been well canvassed and have mostly been declared out of order.

The second member for Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, this section is an important and pertinent part of the bill. It tries to answer the fairly important accusation that the government is not prepared to allow a decent hearing on termination. Now we have this amendment, which establishes a review panel. The minister has stated how ludicrous it would be to consider the government firing 250,000 employees. Indeed, we would hope that the government — even this government — wouldn't consider such action. But the difficulty is that there are indeed 250,000 public employees who might be affected by this legislation.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: That's quite correct. Potentially they all could be affected, right? That's the issue. Of course, what that's created is great instability and concern. So there is hope out there that a review panel to be established to review terminations, firings — whatever you want to call them — would not be a subjective group totally appointed by the government. If the government is serious in trying to create the image or perception that its review panel is a new venture by you to be fair and judicious in your terminations, then the review panel should not be totally appointed by cabinet. That review panel should be balanced. Somewhere there should be a mechanism whereby the representatives of the employees partakes, or has a role, on that review panel. Otherwise, that review panel, as the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) stated, can only be viewed as one that is going to back up totally the wishes and whims of the government. If the government is serious in that review panel being viewed as fair and judicious, they would allow for some representation from the employees.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is now discussing debate that has already been reflected in a vote on a motion that was declared out of order.

MR. BLENCOE: Correct me, Mr. Chairman. We are indeed talking about, I believe, section 4.1 which says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall appoint members to the review panel. I am specifically talking about the appointment to that panel. What I am trying to say — and I would like the minister to answer — is that if he really wished this panel to be seen as a fair and objective group, he would allow for the employees to have representation on that panel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Cowichan–Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) proposed an amendment that stated that. That amendment was declared out of order because it infringed upon the prerogative of the Crown; therefore, any other debate along those lines would have to be declared out of order as well. Perhaps the member has new information he wishes to advance to the amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like the minister to answer how he sees this review panel as being an objective, judicious group, when indeed it's to be totally appointed by the government. How does it meet his so-called desire to be viewed as fair in these terminations when the cabinet will do all the appointing? How does he answer the accusations out there in the public sector fraternity that it is just another way of ensuring the terminations — whom you wish to terminate — are carried out at the total will of the cabinet? I think that is something that the minister should answer, and if he doesn't answer it properly, maybe there should be further amendments that allow for the employees to have some sort of representation in that group.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me point out that the question has been asked. You are impinging upon standing order 43. Further, the minister is not under any obligation to answer.

[ Page 2695 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: I want to say that the member is imputing motives to the people before they are appointed to the review panel. I might say that the chairman and the ad hoc members who will be serving on this review panel will be here on a temporary basis. I want to say that they are coming from the field of industrial relations. They have a reputation to protect, and if their field is industrial relations, you better be assured that the people have integrity — integrity which they will protect to ensure that they will continue to be recognized, and their integrity recognized, in the field of industrial relations.

[7:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Perhaps the minister could inform us of the names of those people who supposedly have integrity in the labour relations area, to whom he's referring. Perhaps he could let us know who will be chairman, and whom he has in mind to sit on this review panel.

Second, and most important, will the employees who are to be terminated and who appeal to this review panel have any rights in saying who will hear their particular case? Would they be able to object to any member on that review panel? Consider that some of these employees may have been employees for a number of years.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no. I have indicated before that we're going to be engaging people of integrity. There are no names in the basket. There are no names considered at this time. At the earliest opportunity we'll be seeking out people who are knowledgeable, as I've mentioned before, in the field of arbitration and industrial relations. We will have people of integrity on these panels. Beyond that, if an individual feels that he hasn't been treated fairly by that particular panel — say his termination has been upheld — then he still has the right to judicial review. I want to assure you that the individual who goes to judicial review won't have the right of selection of the judge.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like to ask the minister why he feels it's necessary to establish a review panel totally under the appointment of the cabinet separate from the Labour Relations Board? What's his intention in establishing virtually a quasi-Labour Relations Board but yet subject to the appointment of the cabinet? Is this review panel to challenge the jurisdiction of the Labour Relations Board and its objectivity?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I think I've responded to that question once before, and any further questions from that member that are repetitious in nature and that I've already responded to I'll have to decline to reply. What we're attempting to do here is to establish a review panel that will essentially address in the most expeditious manner possible any grievances which employees who have been terminated might have. We're attempting to fast-track and get away from the cumbersome judicial review appeal mechanism which we had originally put in place. I would suggest that this will be one that will address the concerns of any terminated employees in a more speedy mechanism than the Labour Relations Board could possibly do, because we have an individual chairman plus part-time members who will be addressing strictly the matter of terminations and whether those terminations were valid or not.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I've been listening to you again warn members of the opposition about repetitions and asking the same questions, and I would move that the question be now put.

Question approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 7

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

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 7

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

On amendment 4.2.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, on the same line, in believing this review panel was a very important part of this bill in terms of it making some kind of attempt to be fair, although clearly the minister would not answer that particular question about who was going to be on it and the ability of the employee to make sure the panel is objective, I would therefore like to move a further amendment. I'd like to move that we delete everything after the words "review panel" and insert "which shall order reinstatement of the employee if the determination is determined to be in violation of the terms of the collective agreement."

[ Page 2696 ]

[7:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd better see that one.

MR. BLENCOE: Can I speak to that, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member may proceed without prejudice.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you. The reason for moving that particular amendment is that if the government is serious about maintaining collective agreements and ensuring they are important....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What are you looking up there for?

MR. BLENCOE: It's the lights, you know. It's much better than looking over there, I can tell you. At least that ceiling is attractive. There's a little glitter up there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: And also, it doesn't answer back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please proceed.

MR. BLENCOE: I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this is an appropriate amendment, given that the government is sincere about its attempts to maintain and enhance the terms of the collective agreement. If the review panel finds that the termination is in violation of that collective agreement — and the minister has talked about the sanctity of the collective agreement on a number of occasions — then the review panel shall automatically reinstate the employee if the termination is determined to be in violation of the terms of that collective agreement. I challenge the minister now to say that he feels that this kind of an amendment isn't one that supports his continued support for the concept of the collective agreement and that he believes in the sanctity of the collective agreement. This amendment is in keeping with the so-called intention of this government to say to the people of British Columbia and to its loyal employees that the collective agreement will be upheld and supported. Let's hope that the minister can support this particular amendment.

Just before we hear from the minister, Mr. Chairman, I think it's very important that this amendment be endorsed. If the review panel doesn't have any terms of reference in terms of the collective agreement and what it says and doesn't say, of course this review panel could indeed be working very much in the dark. I happen to feel that that review panel should have some reference to the collective agreement. I think that's important. The minister has said he believes a collective agreement is important, and by inserting this amendment it would ensure that the review panel has to review the collective agreement to ensure that the terms of reference and the statements aren't being violated and if those terms have been violated that that employee is automatically reinstated. These are democratic principles for the review panel, I would think. Let's hear what the minister feels about that amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Regrettably the Chair, though, must rule the amendment out of order, because it completely negates the amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, that's really most unfortunate. A very reasonable amendment....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The amendment's out of order.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, because of the reason and the sense of this amendment, I'm going to have to challenge your ruling on that.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 11

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

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

On the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: Unfortunately, my colleague failed to have his amendment moved in order, but I have a concern that I think you will understand, Mr. Chairman, and this deals with section 4.2(3): "The review panel shall render a decision within two days after the hearing of the matter and is not required to provide written reasons...." Surely, Mr. Chairman, in this day and age freedom of information has to be important. There is no way that we can sit still for a motion that will disallow the right to know why that decision has been made. I would therefore move that in line 2 we delete "is not required to" and substitute "shall," and then in line 3 that we delete "beyond that which it considers necessary to render its decision." So section 4.2(3) would then read: "The review panel shall render a decision within two days after the hearing of the matter and shall provide written reasons." I so move, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 2697 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please continue, hon. member, if you wish. Oh, one moment, please. I'm sorry, the minister was on his feet to speak.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, addressing the proposed amendment by the member for Cowichan–Malahat, I just want to say that the suggestion of the member would virtually tie the hands of the review panel to a substantial degree. As I indicated previously under section 4.1(1), this mechanism, or this review panel, was one that was put into place as a fast-tracking mechanism to ensure that individuals have the right to appeal at the very earliest opportunity any injustice they feel has been done to them with regard to termination.

So the proposed amendment by the member would completely reverse the full intent of this review, and it would be time-consuming on the part of the chairman or any of the appointees to the panel. Now I think the subsection is fairly explicit: "...two days after the hearing of the matter, and is not required to provide written reasons beyond that which it considers necessary to render its decision." I think that's adequate protection and adequate information for the individuals going before this review panel. For the member to throw in this particular amendment would be gross interference with what we're attempting to do in putting in place the rights of people who might be terminated.

[8:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, the amendment fails as it is a direct negative to the motion.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I have to challenge that ruling.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 10

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

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

On the amendment.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Chairman, over the past few hours we have seen an insidious abuse of the process unravel. We have seen spurious amendment after spurious amendment put forth. Clearly, all of them have been out of order. Once the Chair has clarified that the so-called amendment has been out of order, it's been challenged — again, only to serve as an abuse of the process.

Mr. Chairman, clearly it is time that we got on with the matter of debating the merits of this bill. Accordingly, I move that the question be now put.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, is the preamble open to amendment? I believe that the preamble can be amended.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. NICOLSON: What do you mean a preamble can't be amended? Well, we've just heard a huge preamble to the motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no preamble involved, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I sure heard a preamble.

Question approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 10

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

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

[ Page 2698 ]

NAYS — 10

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

On section 5.

[8:15]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'm saying that section 5 is deleted and I'm suggesting we vote against section 5.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a good point. The amendment on the order paper is out of order. The way to dispense with this is to simply vote against the section.

Section 5 negatived unanimously on a division.

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

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, the government having been defeated, the Chairman should rise and report the matter to the Speaker in order that a general election may be called.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that applies in committee, hon. member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper, namely section 5.1. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, when you realize how limited section 5.1 is — and I'm not reflecting on the vote, because I know we can't go back to discuss the terms under which an employee can apply for an appearance before the judicial review.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, section 5 has just been defeated and now there is no section. It is my opinion that we must now move on to section 6.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm asking how you can amend something that doesn't exist. Clearly it is out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it would seem that section 5.1 is completely separate from section 5. While it might present in the course of things some kind of a numbering problem with the fact that 5 has been deleted, it does stand by itself. I would have to rule that your point is not well taken and that we should continue to debate section 5.1.

MR. NICOLSON: I challenge your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 8

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, he was.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, then he wasn't in his chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) was in his chair, but he is about to take the chair now and he left.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, I don't care if he's going to take the chair; that is disorderly. It's been brought to the attention of the House before. This is the second time that I brought this to the House. The first time the Speaker agreed with me. Members are to remain in their seats, particularly while the division is being placed, and they are not to talk when the list is being read.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, how can one check where a person is...? How can a person assist the Clerks — as earlier I did this evening when I noted that Mr. Fraser was not here — if members do not remain in their seats?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Nelson–Creston on his point of order. I detected in this parliamentary session a lot of sloppiness on the part of members on both sides of the House in dealing with the question of divisions where members are not in their seats, which makes it abundantly difficult for the Clerks to determine where the members are. It must be very frustrating for them. I would hope that once and for all we get some kind of decorum in the House in dealing with divisions, and that members take their seats immediately upon a division being called.

[ Page 2699 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Both points of order are well taken.

MR. LAUK: Could we have a report from the Clerk? How does he feel about this? I mean, he's there all the time. We always rely on him. He's a cute little fellow, but we never hear from him. I mean, when are we going to hear from old George?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Table has expressed itself on those members who did vote during the division. That was most clear, I think. Is recording asked for?

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

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

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: I gather then that as a result of that last vote that section.... This is a brand-new section 5 that we're dealing with. The old section 5, which gave awesome powers to the deputy minister, has been deleted, and the government has responded to the pressure from the opposition and from the community at large and removed that section.

However, under the new section 5.1, Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering, because it's broken down into three different sections, if you would like us to deal with all of the sections at once, or if you would like us to deal with each section separately.

HON. MR. CHABOT: All at once.

MS. BROWN: Okay. So I'm dealing with 5.1 in its entirety.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 5.1.

[8:30]

MS. BROWN: The whole thing through? Okay.

The problem that we have with section 5.1 in its entirety is that what you get under 5.1(1) is neutered, quite frankly, by 5.1(2) and (3). In other words....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, what you see is not necessarily what you get, because what section 5.2(l) says is that an aggrieved employee who believes that her employment has been terminated for some reason other than those covered under section 2(l) then has recourse to the judicial review panel. Right? But then subsection 5.1(2) and (3) start to put parameters around her rights to appeal to that panel based on time. What section 5.1(2) says is that she has to do this within a period of two months.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Have a decision brought down by the review panel. Sure.

MS. BROWN: That's fine. You see, the problem that we have with that is that time doesn't always operate in the best interest of the aggrieved party, and placing a limit of two months — or even if it were three months or four months, as the case may be — could really work to the disadvantage of an employee who would need the time to develop her case of based on rejecting the decisions brought down by the panel.

Now let us say, for an example.... For example, one of the problems that I'm running into is that with all this debate my grammar is beginning to slip.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Your what's slipping?

MS. BROWN: My grammar. I almost said "for an example" instead of "for example."

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'm going to ignore him.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I didn't hear it.

MS. BROWN: I'm going to treat him with the contempt that he deserves anyway.

What happens here, Mr. Chairman, if an employee disagrees with the decision brought down by the panel in terms of the termination of her services.... Say, for example, that she worked on a program, and the program was wiped out so she lost her job, and the reason given for the program being wiped out was that the government no longer perceived any need for this program and so, as set out under subsection (c), decided to discontinue it. If that one employee, or a number of employees, challenge that ruling of the review panel based on their perception that the program is still needed, that there is still funding available for that program and that the program should continue, then presumably the employee or employees can appeal the decision of the review panel. It could conceivably take more than two months to put together a good case in support of her position. If, for example, we're looking at a program like, say, post-partum counselling, which is terminated, as the government has its right to do, under subsection (c) — terminating the program under (a) and (b), that there is no funding for it or that the program is no longer necessary.... If four or five employees, individually in that program, disagree with the ruling of the review panel and want to appeal that ruling, they have to do a number of things. They have to prove that the government was incorrect, first of all, in deciding that there was no funding available for that program. They have to prove that the government was incorrect....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: I'm reading 5. 1, which says that on application you can go before the review panel, as stated under 4.2, which is that an employee who has been terminated for some reason outlined in section 2.1.... I'm saying that section 5.1(2) says that has to be done in two months. My argument is that in order to put together a good case to challenge the decision brought down by the review panel, it is conceivable that 60 days is not enough time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's 45 days in the court of appeal.

[ Page 2700 ]

MS. BROWN: Well, you know, Mr. Chairman, when you challenge a ruling by the court of appeal, you hire yourself fancy lawyers, some high-priced dudes whose entire job is to prepare appeals before the court of appeal. Now you take a little employee of the post-partum counselling program — she doesn't have access to those Philadelphia hotshots, or to the geniuses from the chancery, or whatever it is around here. And this is precisely what I am saying, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, who is interfering with the Provincial Secretary's train of thought. Sixty days would not give a person who is not expert in the ways of the law sufficient time to prepare a case. I'm outlining to you some of the difficulties involved in preparing that case. That employee has to challenge the review panel's decision that there is no money to pay for this program. She has to muster facts and figures to show that the review panel, in taking the government's word on that, was incorrect in its decision. And that could conceivably — no pun intended — take more than 60 days.

She also has to challenge the panel's decision that there was a reduced level of activity in that particular program. And that can take — if she's going to do a good job, will take — more than 60 days.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, essentially we're discussing judicial review. I hope we're not revisiting the review panel, because we've had ample discussion on that particular part of the legislation. So let's really stick with judicial review. If you want to put forward an argument that 60 days isn't ample time for an individual who might have been turned down by the review panel, fine, make your argument on that basis. But let's not revisit the review panel, because that would be tedious and repetitious on matters that have been dealt with by this House by vote some time ago.

MS. BROWN: His point of order is well taken, Mr. Chairman, no question about it. But it does not alter my contention that the parameter of time which has been placed around this woman's right to appeal is too narrow; it's too constricting.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Do you have an amendment? If not, drop it.

MS. BROWN: No. I'm waiting for you to withdraw your own amendment. This is the reason why I'm going to take a lot of time and....

HON. MR. CHABOT: May I respond to that?

MS. BROWN: Okay. Sure.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've carefully reviewed this judicial review section and subsections that are contained in this legislation, and after careful thought, the amendment was presented to the House. Careful thought suggested to me that 60 days was sufficient time for an appeal for judicial review on a decision from the review panel. I'm not prepared to consider a change, because in my humble opinion that's ample time.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, naturally we find the entire bill and all the amendments thereto fraught with problems. We're dealing with something here that in outward appearance looks first-class, because it gives an opportunity, after having been kicked around by a review panel that's been set up by the minister, to go to the judge and ask that the judge set aside what the review panel has done. What a state of affairs, however, when we have to have an amendment like this to a bill in the first place! It strikes me that anybody looking at the question of 60 days, 90 days, 45 days, or whatever it might be, is really overlooking the state of chaos we've got ourselves into when we have to have this kind of section in a bill in the first place.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the time element in subsections (2) and (3) of 5.1 would appear to be inadequate. I'll tell you why I feel it's inadequate. The average person isn't a person who's gone through a supreme court hearing and then has recourse to appeal, has a battery of lawyers around him, and so forth. We're dealing with naive, unsophisticated employees of the provincial government, and they need help. Now 60 days goes very quickly. I figure that the subsections (2) and (3) should be dropped from this — either that or some protraction of the time.

That's just about the size of it, Mr. Chairman. It's not as though we want to revisit what happened in 4.2 or 4.1, and originally in section 2. What we want to do is say that when you start the ball rolling, it gets round to a point at which you're placing public employees in a position where they may have to seek, if they're able to afford it, judicial review of what's happened in a review panel — a sorry state of affairs, to say the very least.

[8:45]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would mind telling us exactly how he sees an application for a judicial review progressing — the timetable. Show us how it would fit into this 60 days. He says it's ample time, and he's given the matter a great deal of thought. I wonder if he would share those great-deal thoughts with us.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, it's not much different from some of the time limits which exist in the court system. I remember being in the supreme court some years ago, and I was given a limited period of time to launch an appeal to the appeal court of the province. If I remember it correctly, it was about 45 days, which involved moving the transcripts up from the supreme court to the appeal court and paying the price tag for that, plus ongoing requirements of a lawyer — who, I might say, was eminently fair to me as far as fees were concerned; even though I thought it was a lot of money, he was abundantly fair. I found that 45 days was ample time for me to make up my mind as to whether or not I wanted to appeal the decision of the supreme court, and to determine whether or not I wanted to pay the massive fee involved in moving the transcripts up to the higher court. I opted not to proceed. But 45 days would have been sufficient time. I'd consulted my lawyer at the time, and my lawyer said he was prepared to move into the appeal court whenever they had a courtroom to hear the appeal. The 60 days, to me, is abundantly fair; it's sufficient time. I have an open mind on this issue, but I really think it's fair. If I were to be, in due course, when the House reconvenes — next spring, hopefully.... If anyone would come forward to me and suggest that 60 days was causing a tremendous inconvenience to some of the people involved with these terminations who had decided to

[ Page 2701 ]

go to judicial review, I'd be prepared to bring forward an amendment.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question to the minister following his last remarks. I listened very carefully and found something there that concerns me greatly. In reply to the question from the hon. member for Burnaby–Edmonds about whether the time was long enough or not, I understand the minister to have replied that from his own personal experience he thought it would be all right, and then he also said he has an open mind and he is ready for reconsideration. The point I want to make and the question I want to ask the minister is: is all this legislation he has placed before us, plus the regulations, primarily based on the minister's own personal experiences and feelings, as he seemed to suggest on this last clause? Secondly, when he suggests that he's willing to meet again, would it not be preferable to sit down and have negotiations as before in proper collective bargaining with the employees, instead of us being presented here with a unilateral type of decision-making, apparently based on part of the minister's own personal feelings?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the member visualizes a tremendous number of cases going to judicial review. I suggest that that won't be the case. I suggest that the review panel will address any appeals that might be forthcoming from employees of the provincial government, and I might say that those will be limited as well. So the spinoff to the judicial review would be very limited. Nevertheless, it's another form of appeal to an impartial body that is highly respected in this country. I'm saying that there will be very few that ever reach judicial review, because they will have been dealt with fairly by the review panel.

So I think 60 days is ample. And I've suggested that if this is not ample time, I'm prepared to look at it down the road — not at this time, because at this time my view is that 60 days is ample time, but in the ensuing months, as time unfolds — if anybody can give me some evidence that the 60-day limitation has imposed a hardship.

MS. BROWN: I, too, Mr. Chairman, like the minister, have an open mind on this. I'm certainly prepared to reconsider my position if the minister can convince me of a couple of things. The minister, in talking about his own experiences before the courts, mentioned the massive costs involved in a judicial review — moving the transcripts up. Who's going to pick up the tab for something like that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: There are no transcripts to move up.

MS. BROWN: There are no transcripts involved. So in terms of going before a judicial review, who would pick up any costs involved, even if its very minuscule?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Follow the event.

MS. BROWN: The call of what?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's called "follow the event" — the loser pays.

MS. BROWN: In other words, if this woman, who has been working for post-partum counselling for $1,100 a month, decides to challenge the decision of the review panel and ask for a judicial review and loses, she ends up with the costs — which is the normal process under normal conditions. But the minister himself, in introducing this legislation, said that the government is a unique employer. I think that the government has a responsibility to ensure that an employee is not deprived of her rights, based on consideration for the costs.

The minister himself said that he did not take his case before the judicial review because of the costs involved. He thought about the costs and realized that he could have lost and would have ended up having to pay these costs. He decided not to take his case to judicial review. When the minister says that very few of these cases are going to go before a judicial review, the minister is quite right, because just the idea that a person may lose the review and be stuck with the legal costs is deterrent enough in many instances. If justice is going to be denied on those grounds, then I think that is reason enough for the minister to look at this section again.

For example, let us say that the woman who works for post-partum counselling is not happy with the decision brought down by the review panel and wants to ask for a judicial review. The first thing she has to do is find out the costs involved, and that's going to take some time.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, it's going to take time. You don't just pick up the phone and say: "Hey, can you tell me how much a judicial review costs today, please?" That's not how it's done. It takes some time. Once she has a ballpark figure — because it's just an estimate, and everyone knows how accurate estimates are these days — of what it would cost in the event the judicial review came down against her and on behalf of the government, then she has to seriously weigh whether it is in her own financial best interests to proceed with this review.

Now what the minister has not been able to tell me, Mr. Chairman, is, why the rush? What would be so bad about extending the period of time beyond 60 days for a reasonable number of additional days so that all of the research into the costs can be done, all of the thinking in terms of even trying to raise money through public donations, or some other way to ensure that it's there, in case this challenge turns out to be a precedent on behalf of other people, not just herself? It takes some time to mobilize that kind of financial support, and having made the decision, having raised the money, then hiring a lawyer or whatever is involved in preparing the case, giving the legal counsel the time that's required to prepare a decent appeal to take before the judicial review panel.

The wheels of justice grind slowly. That's what we've been told. There is a reason for that, and it's because it's so important. It seems to me that to curtail — for no good reason that the minister has indicated to date — the time allowed to ensure that in fact justice is done is not doing a service to the employee or employees involved.

I agree with the minister. He said he thought about it at great length and decided that not that many cases are going to be taken before the judicial review panel anyway. That may be true. But the reasons why those cases are not taken before the judicial review panel could be all the wrong reasons. It may not be that people are satisfied with a decision of the review panel; it could be that people have decided that 60 days is not sufficient time to raise the funds that are needed to

[ Page 2702 ]

find the legal counsel, or for that legal counsel — or legal counsels, because it may be more than one — to prepare an adequate case to clearly state their position and have the decision of the review panel overthrown.

I would like the minister to tell me why there is an unwillingness to extend the period of time. Isn't it better to err on the side of giving a person too much time to ensure that in fact justice is done, than to err on the side of too short a time and ensure that justice is not done? Justice is not delayed if the delay is on the side of the victim appearing before the judicial review committee.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Honestly, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs, if I just folded my tent and stole away in the night every time someone disagreed with me, I would be halfway across the Sahara by now. But that's not the way it works. What you do is involve yourself in dialogue. The minister stated that he had an open mind on this, and I seized the opportunity to deal with his open mind; it's not too often that open minds cross your path. That's why I'm saying to the minister, why not err on the side of giving too much time rather than on the other side? Why not? Give me a reason. That's what I'm asking the minister.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Give me a reason why you would rather err on the side of too little time than on the side of too much time.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for Burnaby–Edmonds has beaten this issue to death. What we're attempting to do is give a reasonable length of time for people to apply for judicial review. I don't know whether the member is attempting to suggest that judicial review should be in place or not, but I'm suggesting that for the sake of fairness the judicial review be in place, as well as another tribunal for individuals to appeal what they consider to be unfair treatment, say from the review panel.

I suggest that there is nothing more I can say about this particular section. I've responded in detail. I've talked about the time-frame in which people have the right to appeal. I find it to be an abundantly fair section. I really have no further comment.

[9:00]

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 8

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

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, did I hear the name Campbell in the affirmative? He was still sound asleep when we were voting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You win some and you lose some.

MR. COCKE: That's right.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 6(1) standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the minister didn't ask afterward that the section be passed, and I would like to move an amendment to section 5.1.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's a little late.

MS. BROWN: No, because the Chair moved on without asking if this section should pass. I was waiting for it and it was not called.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, no, no. Now he says, "Shall this section pass," and he didn't. The section as amended, but not the section. The division was on the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I know what you're speaking of. In this particular instance there is a slight difference inasmuch as the whole section is being added. It wasn't there before.

MS. BROWN: But it was ruled earlier, Mr. Chairman, that section 5 was deleted, and that section 5.1 is an amendment to that section. That was the ruling which the earlier Chairman brought down.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Sure, I know I'm right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it would seem to the Chair that if an amendment was going to come forward on section 5.1, such amendment should have come forward during the debate.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Earlier you ruled that we could amend a section that had been negated and we were on an amendment then to section 5. Therefore the proper motion should be: "Shall the section as amended pass?" We have not had that motion.

Interjections.

[ Page 2703 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if we could just have order for a moment. My understanding is that section 5 was deleted. That took care of section 5. And it was voted on; as I recall, a division was called on that particular thing, so that did away with section 5. We have just finished dealing with the amendment — section 5.1 — which was debated in the proper manner. When the question was called as to whether the section should pass, a vote was taken and the section was passed.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will hon. members just give the Chair one moment, please?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, previous to this last vote, there was no section 5.1 in the act. Section 5.1, however it may be renumbered, was created with the approval of the amendment. It previously did not exist.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What were we amending?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's an addition by way of amendment. So it is now an addition to the bill, but it had no life prior to the vote which created that section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Provincial Secretary on a point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Further to what the House Leader had to say, Mr. Chairman, I have some difficulty with you having put the following question, because this is an amendment which essentially is a new section, and that amendment was accepted by the members of the House by vote. Now I don't know how you can possibly put the question about the amendment to the section, because there is no section. It's an amendment which creates a section. I have some difficulty with you putting this question: "Shall the section as amended pass?" You just can't put that question, because you don't have a section that is amended. You have a section that was created by an amendment. So you really can't put the question "shall the section as amended pass?" You can't put that question, because you haven't amended a section; you have created a section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Coquitlam–Moody.

MR. ROSE: I realize the difficulty for the Chair, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to ask a rhetorical question: how would it be possible for my colleague to amend a section that wasn't even there until the last vote?

HON. MR. CHABOT: She would have done it before the vote.

MR. ROSE: That section wasn't even there.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I moved the amendment.

MR. ROSE: But until you moved the amendment and you created that clause, it was impossible to amend it, because we hadn't even received it. You can't amend something that doesn't even exist.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, an amendment could have been received as a subamendment to the amendment, which has happened on more than one occasion. It seems to the Chair that there is some misunderstanding here. The Chair is concerned that the member for Burnaby–Edmonds perhaps misunderstood the process of dealing with the section.

MS. BROWN: No, no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So you didn't misunderstand?

MS. BROWN: No. I understood that when the minister rose to his feet he said: "I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper."

MR. ROSE: The point that I'm trying to make is that there was no way we could amend the amendment before it came about. You recall that it was a challenge to the Chair that established even its entry here, because the challenge to the Chair was that it was impossible to amend section 5 by adding subsection (1). We deleted section 5 and added 5.1 by amendment. So at that point there was, until this thing was created, no possibility of amendment. You can't amend something, as I said earlier, before it has arrived.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, it seems that it is fairly common practice in this House that an amendment is put forth on the order paper, it is considered, and, in some cases, it is amended or attempts are made to amend it. But once it is passed by a vote, that section stands as is, and that's exactly what happened here on a division. Certainly during the debate, as I recall, there have been other amendments that have been changed as the debate progressed; either that or subamendments have been ruled out of order. None of that was done. The amendment was finally put through, a division was called, and the members approved that section as printed. Therefore that section is now in effect. If we accept now that a section that has been passed by this House can be subject to amendments, then we would be opening the door to every possible amendment to every possible section and every bill could be amended after it has been passed.

[9:15]

MR. NICOLSON: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, we did not so much amend section 5 as we did defeat section 5. Then it was ruled that it was possible to amend a section that had been totally deleted, right? In other words, 5 became a number with a blank space after it. We then moved that it was in order to move section 5.1 under — still in this slot — section 5. Now if my colleague wishes to move an amendment, she could also add material relating to judicial review under this slot.

But, Mr. Chairman, that is not the point I seek to make. I am seeking to make the point that we have now amended section 5. This is in the order paper under "proposed amendments to bills." In committee you can only amend sections. We have amended section 5. My point of order is that, having amended section 5, it would be proper that we just rule on whether section 5 as amended shall pass. That is the question which I argue must be put now: shall the section as amended pass?

[ Page 2704 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: But hon. member, the section wasn't there until this amendment went through. You make the very point that the Chair has tried to make, and that is that your colleague, the member for Burnaby–Edmonds (Ms. Brown), during the course of the debate on section 5.1 could have brought forward an amendment. But the hon. member didn't do that. So in the course of the normal debate, it came to the point where the question was called as to whether it should pass. A vote was taken, and it was voted by this House that this section should pass. So we now have a new section within the act. At this point in time it would seem that if the House would agree, I suppose that an amendment could be brought forward. But in the normal course of events, I would suggest that an amendment is not really in order at this point.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. It is not my point of order that an amendment should be brought forward at this time. The point of order that I'm making is that we must have the question: "Shall the section as amended pass?" The section has been amended. It's on the order paper as an amendment to a bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the section wasn't there before. How can something be amended that wasn't there? The section was literally created through....

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, when Hansard comes out, and it is reviewed, and if you have the time to reflect over the position you've taken in explaining why that motion cannot be amended, I — with respect — would find some counter-argument. This bill is possibly going to be subject to some challenge in the courts, and I think that if evidence can be proffered in the courts that this section has not been properly dealt with....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Let the courts deal with it.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, if you want to let the courts deal with it under the Constitution Act.... If that's what you want to do, is have the courts do something.... I happen to believe that legislatures and parliaments are supreme, but we should certainly make sure that things are done properly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. NICOLSON: I'm simply trying to assist to see that this is done properly — if it is the will of the majority of this House that this particular bill should pass.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. There has been a great deal of discussion on this point of order. The Chair will recognize the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I think the problem arises because we've never had this sort of thing before.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, we've had it in this bill already.

MR. LEA: In this bill, but not before this bill. And this is the problem that we're going to get when we send out to Woolco for drafters. That's what's happened. I'd be willing to bet a dollar to a doughnut that the legislative counsel didn't put this bill together, that the government went outside of the government to do it, and this is the problem we're getting. This is the first time we've ever had this, to my knowledge, and I don't think anybody in the House has been here longer than I have. That's the problem we get.

So what we have to be careful of, Mr. Chairman....

When we get to these in the future, where we're doing this sort of thing, I think it would be incumbent upon the Chair to warn the members that if they wish to amend, they have to make a subamendment.

MS. BROWN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. When the minister introduced this section he said: "I move the amendments standing under my name on the order paper." There were two amendments on the order paper. One amendment deleted the original statement about the deputy, and the other amendment moved into section 5.1. Amendments can create and amendments can delete. Both things happened under these two amendments. First he deleted one part of section 5 and with the other he created section 5.1, which is what we were debating at this point. The amendment was supported, and now the Chairman very clearly has to state: "Will section 5.1, as amended, pass?"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's an addition.

MS. BROWN: But it is still an amendment to section 5. It's an amendment that created section 5.1.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, it isn't.

MS. BROWN: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, as for your suggestion that I should ask the permission of the House to proceed, etc., I just wanted to respond to that by saying that I'm not prepared to do that. It is very clear that it is not the intention of the government to accept the amendment, even before hearing it. Also I think it would be establishing a precedent which I do not want to establish. Clearly there has been an incorrect ruling made, and I think that's what should stand.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I think that one of the difficulties that arises here is that the government has sought to avoid an ignominious defeat by withdrawing the bill and resubmitting a new bill, which would have required more debate in second reading — perhaps perceived by the government to mean a lot of lost time. What we have tried to do is an end run around changing the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill was to give sweeping powers to the deputy minister, and now it has become.... Really, you have tried to avoid second reading, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are reflecting on a vote that's already been taken, which is out of order.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, perhaps Mr. Chairman should have ruled this total amendment and process out of order, because it is counter to the original second reading which was given, the principle of which was approved in the House. This particular section should have been ruled out of order. This is why we're in the trouble we're in right now.

[ Page 2705 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Challenge the Chair.

MR. NICOLSON: I don't intend to challenge the Chair. I would certainly like to see some proper procedures followed in this House, however. That is the problem that we're in, Mr. Chairman. I leave you with the problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Patience, hon. members. We'll move along to section 6(l). Mr. Minister.

On section 6.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, just in the event you've forgotten, I'll again move section 6(l).

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, would the minister kindly explain to us what exactly he's doing here in the amendment, vis-à-vis what was originally in 6(l) ? As I see it, he's broadening the terms with respect to management, but it's vague, because we see some conflict or some contradiction.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, you're talking about contract of employment for a fixed term?

MR. COCKE: Yes.

HON. MR. CHABOT: This definition defines fixed term contracts as any contract for services for a term which, if not renewed or extended, ends on a date that is ascertainable at the time the contract was entered into.

MR. COCKE: Well, what does this proposal mean? Does it mean that there's going to be a good deal of contracting out in terms of management skills in government service?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No.

MR. COCKE: Then why would the fixed-term contract be a part of this bill?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The reason for the amendment is that under the previous section we addressed the question of implied contracts, which we had some difficulty with in determining contract. This more clearly specifies it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I gather this fits in after (a)(i) and (a)(ii) ? Then we go on to (a) and (b). It's quite a....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, that's right. This goes after "senior manager." Is that correct? Then you have (a): "who is...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member has lost the Chair here someplace.

AN HON. MEMBER: It looks like it's messed up somehow.

[9:30]

MR. ROSE: I think perhaps it's been located now, but I'm suggesting that the thing on the order paper — this amendment — is out of position, that it's not really a part of (a) at all, but precedes (a). If one looks at the bottom of page 3, under 6(l), the second paragraph deals with contract of employment. Does that not just expand the definition of contract of employment for a fixed term? It's just an expanded definition which perhaps more properly belongs in that spot.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'll direct my questions to the member for Coquitlam–Moody in the future. What he is pointing out was what I was trying to point out to the minister in the first place by asking questions. It's a mess. It's a total mess, just like the drafting of this bill has been right from the outset, and the drafting of the amendments are likewise. That's why when you try to fit 6(l) amendment into 6(l), you find yourself really grasping for straws, because it amends right in the middle of that paragraph without showing lines to be added to or anything else. As far as I'm concerned, it's a totally incomplete amendment.

MS. BROWN: I want to point out it's also sinister. You see, Mr. Chairman, what happens under this is, for example, that many of the social services delivered in this province are done by contract. The women who work at the rape relief centres and transition houses are on contract. Invariably they get their contract renewed from year to year. What this new extended version says is that if they get their payment....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The member talks about rape relief centres and post-partum contracts and so forth. This does not relate to any contract that might be contained in contractual rights between the government and certain groups out in society. This really addresses the question of contracts which might be held by senior managers in the public sector.

MR. COCKE: Just for kicks, would the minister get up and explain his amendment and how it juxtaposes with the original section of the bill? That's what we're mainly interested in at this juncture.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the proposed amendment, I think members of the House may be somewhat inadvertently misled by the words "(a) by adding the following definition...." That sentence will not appear in the amended statute. Rather, under section 6(l) there will be the following definition: that is, "contract of employment for a fixed term." I would presume the people responsible for producing the bill will put "contract of employment for a fixed term in alphabetical order under this section 6(l). Therefore I presume it would follow "contract of employment."

The second section of 6(l), which is defined as "(b)," is perhaps more straightforward in that it definitely amends the definition of "senior manager." But I think the manner in which it's laid out on the order paper, making use of the letters (a) and (b), has probably led to the confusion.

MR. COCKE: I gather, therefore, that just for our use at this moment — follow me carefully — we're going to arbitrarily insert (a) and (b), and then we're going to have to

[ Page 2706 ]

delete them before it becomes a statute, because you already have an (a) and (b) further on, under 6(l). And then you have a further (a) and (b) and (c) and so on under 6(2). What you're really doing here is inserting, between paragraphs 2 and 3 of 6(l), this addition. Right. But unfortunately, because of the way it's set out here with an additional (a) and (b), you have the most confusing piece of work I've ever seen. How is the minister therefore going to pass an amendment now, marked (a), (b) and all the rest of it, and then suddenly find those deleted ultimately? Why would they have been inserted in the first place? Why couldn't this amendment have been structured so that it could fit in and we could have voted on it? The Minister of Health may get up as a parliamentary expert on this, but he knows, as I do, that it's a bit of a mess.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if the Chair could just make an observation here. One can't help but agree that there's a certain amount of confusion inherent in this particular thing, but may I suggest to the hon. member that the (a) and (b) as contained on the order paper under section 6(l) relate to delineating between the two separate items that appear under that section, as opposed to referring to any (a) or (b) in the bill itself. I think that has added to the confusion by being in there. I would suggest that the (a) is added within section 6(l) as a new definition, and then the (b) is just the new definition which goes under the amendment to the "senior manager" part of the.... I think it's unfortunate that (a) and (b) appear in that way, but I would suggest again that it's merely to delineate between the two separate amendments contained within the amendment to section 6(l).

MR. ROSE: I agree with what you say, because it's what I said about 15 minutes ago. It's the same thing. But it doesn't seem to me that it's right for it to stand as it is, because as it is it really is an expanded definition, and the relationship to this amendment and the enumeration here remain confusing. I suggest that the amendment should be to the bottom or paragraph 2 of 6(l), and that that paragraph should be amended. That is what it should say in the order paper. I hope that's what will come out in the final version of the act.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, that's what I'm wondering about. That's why I don't want to vote for this at the moment. I don't want to vote for this for a lot of other reasons, too, so I don't want the clause to go or the vote to be put.... If we're going to deal with this particular, what it was in the order paper, section 6(l)(a).... I want to deal with what is in the order paper under 6(l)(b).

HON. MR. CHABOT: Aye.

MR. ROSE: Well, what does that "aye" mean?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 6(l) pass?

MR. ROSE: No! I thought I made that clear.

I'm still not satisfied that what will occur in the bill is what we want to occur, which you, Your Honour, yourself said would occur: that the amendment should really relate to paragraph 2 of 6(l) at the bottom of page 3, rather than where it is. Certainly the renumbering has to take place. I assume that that'll be done. I don't know why I would assume that, but I'd like your assurance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must point out to you that you did mention, when you were on your feet just a moment ago, that you would like to speak to subparagraph (b), that it be dealt with separately. May I suggest that if you wish to speak to 6(l)(b) as listed on the order paper, you're quite free to do so in the context of the whole amendment, as opposed to separating it.

MR. ROSE: If something was going to be done about this at this point, I didn't want it to get lost. Assuming that something is going to be done about it.... I can only assume that it's going to be re-placed, and an expanded definition of "contracting out" or whatever the word is.... I'll address myself to 6(l).

Is anything going to happen or not? Does the House Leader want the floor on this?

HON. MR. CHABOT: What's the question?

MR. ROSE: I was asking whether or not the renumbering and the repositioning of this section 6(l)(a) as found in the order paper will be taken care of. If that is the case, then I'd like to go on to the other matter: 6(l)(b).

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes. The way I see section 6(l) is this way. Section 6(l) will address the question of compensation in the first instance, and will address the question of "contract of employment." Item number two will address the question of "contract of employment for a fixed term." Number three will address the issue of "minister," go on to " 'senior manager' means an employee," and then "(a) who is (i) referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c) of the definition of employee in the Labour Code, or (ii) a principal or vice-principal or any other teacher who is employed by a school board and who holds a supervisory position, or (b) who holds a...." The word "or," of course will change to "and."

[9:45]

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: From "and" to "or," sorry.

"...or (b) who holds a position that is designated under subsection (2) as a senior management position." That's essentially how the section will appear when printed.

MR. ROSE: All right.

I'd like to address myself now to the other part of it, and that has to do with the business about vice-principals and principals being designated under the Compensation Stabilization Act as senior managers. I oppose this, and so has the BCTF going back at least 40 years, as some people can recall; I can recall it going back at least 35 or 30 years.

The reason for this opposition has to do with an implicit destruction of the bargaining unit. What we have now is that principals, vice-principals, supervisors, directors, and various other members of school district staffs, learning assistance people, lots of other people, but some who are in supervisory positions, will now be designated. Therefore their wages — their compensation — will be set by an outside authority. If one's compensation is set by an outside authority, it makes little sense for one to belong to an organization such as the BCTF, which will fight for better conditions, better

[ Page 2707 ]

salaries, better pensions, better increments, better whatever — better supervisory allowances. So in effect this piece of legislation, by removing these people from the bargaining unit, accomplishes the destruction of the BCTF as far as it is useful to principals, vice-principals and supervisors. If the BCTF cannot do anything for them, then why on earth...? If any organization can't do anything for a particular individual, what purpose would there be in belonging? So it does by the back door what the government has failed to achieve by the front door, which is something that has been resisted in the profession as far back as I know the professional organization has existed. That goes back to sometime in the 1930s.

It removes principals, vice-principals and supervisors from their colleagues. I think it's an error in thinking. It assumes that a supervisor, vice-principal or a principal is really a manager and not a teacher; he's a manager first and a teacher second. The assumption is that the teachers that he manages are people who are working on the line and somehow need certain kinds of management — benevolent or otherwise — on the factory model. The factory model is here. Here is Miss Jones, teaching in a primary classroom, and she needs the manager to come in and assist her. Now, that isn't the way it works at all. Miss Jones and Mr. X, at whatever level in teaching, are autonomous professionals. What they need is collegiality within the school system, but not some boss to come around and tell them what to do. The greatest function of a school principal is not necessarily just to organize the timetable, and make certain that people got to work on time, but to be a counsellor and a leader in educational matters, in matters of learning. What the schools are there for primarily is learning. Unfortunately, the principal and the vice-principal have to wear two hats. They have to deal with things that are managerial; things like timetables, busing, budgets, what time is recess and who's on supervision in playgrounds. Those are managerial functions. But by far the most important functions are really not managerial at all. It's the learning function that's important as far as a principal is concerned.

The first point that I'm trying to make is that it removes the principal, vice-principal and the supervisor, or whatever, from the bargaining unit. So it erodes the value to him of that union. The second point that I'm trying to make is that the concept of a principal being a manager is misguided. I think it's ignorant, as a matter of fact. It ignores the reality of the most important function of a teacher. The principal seldom has an MBA. Now it could be argued that he could have one, and it might even be helpful, and there are business managers within certain school systems actually right in the administration of the school. They are not teachers first. They are accountants and managers, and they deal with things. Dealing with people problems will make or break a particular school district. It's for that reason that we have people who will go on to senior positions in education as PhDs or doctors of education, but not masters of business administration.

I oppose this thing. I know there's a great range in salaries of principals and vice-principals across the province. It may be the objective of the government to narrow that range; I don't know. But I know this much: this amendment here is not going to be supported by the people involved in it. It's not just because they're greedy. It's because it removes them from the professional association with their colleagues, and puts them in the role of a manager; it puts them in the role of a boss, and they don't like that.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment to this: that 6(l)(a)(ii) as found in the bill — not in the order paper — be deleted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Perhaps we can get direction from the Chair. The member has proposed, I believe, a new amendment to the printed bill. But we have not yet disposed of the amendment before the committee.

MR. ROSE: Let's not go through that again. We just went through that one.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We haven't disposed of the amendment, though, the sixth one. You have not proposed an amendment to this amendment, but to the bill.

MR. ROSE: Well, we can call it a subamendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this matter has come up before this evening, and as the minister has pointed out, we have adopted the procedure of passing the amendment first, and then taking a second amendment to the original. Shall amendment 6(l) pass?

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 7

[10:00]

On the amendment to subsection 6(1) as amended.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, this is, in effect, according to the government House Leader, a subamendment. It deletes 6(l)(a)(ii), which removes from under the clutches of Ed Peck....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: It's an amendment now to the clause that has just been passed. What it does is....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: It's an amendment, I'm told by our rules expert, to the section as amended. What it does, Mr. Chairman, is to delete and remove from the clutches of the Compensation Stabilization Act principals or vice-principals of a school or any other teacher who is employed by a school

[ Page 2708 ]

board and who holds a supervisory position. I maintain that there are about four basic grounds on which to support my move for deletion.

First of all, there's the historical one. Principals and vice-principals, ever since the inception and establishment of the BCTF, have fought against being split off from their colleagues. It's not just for self-protection because of the matters of salary, or supervision allowance; it's because of the nature of teaching itself. They are colleagues, or, as someone said in Latin to me a little while ago, principals are first among equals. They are not the bosses of a factory model, or shouldn't be considered that. When a principal and vice-principal suddenly has no reason to belong to an organization to which his colleagues belong — not his subordinates, not these people he's supposed to boss around, but autonomous professionals working in a classroom.... When principals and vice-principals are removed from free association with their colleagues, they're going to resist it. Now you may say they can still belong to the BCTF. They can belong to the BCTF — they can belong to any organization they wish, including the Elks and the Masons, I suppose — but it does not have the same effect. If these people come under Mr. Peck, the BCTF becomes redundant to them. There's a practical ground. I've dealt with the historical ones and the reasons for it and I've also dealt with the idea of the practical ground.

The other situation is one I touched on earlier, and that has to do with how you view the principal's and vice-principal's job. I maintain that his job is to work mainly in the learning situation and not necessarily just be preoccupied with the nuts and bolts of the educational system, busing and timetables and things of that nature. The greatest function of a principal should be to be a leader in the learning situation and not merely just a manager of a school. I went on to point out a little earlier and expand on that, and I don't intend to go into it in that detail this time. The proof of this is that the educational leadership and postgraduate work usually results in a doctor of education or a PhD, but seldom do we ever see in the schools somebody with a master of business or a doctor in business administration. Now that may be welcome, that may be needed, but it ignores the function of educational leadership that is part and parcel of the principal or the vice-principal.

On these grounds, I think that deleting these people is not going to play great havoc to the restraint program; it has nothing to do with restraint. I know that there's a vast range throughout the province of principals and vice-principals. You may get the top down a little bit and get the lower part up; that's what you're going to do when you begin to standardize. What you gain in one place, according to your lights, is what you're likely to lose in another place. I'm suggesting to you that it is not restraint at all; it's an effort to break off from their colleagues the principals and vice-principals and supervisors and those people who are on the upward professional mobility trail. The teachers they supervise don't work for them, they work with them. I think that those are pretty compelling arguments. Other people are not usually as convinced as I am; nevertheless, that's the background. I'm suggesting to both the Provincial Secretary and the Minister of Education that this is not going to be a welcome move.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I want to address the issues that are raised by the member from Coquitlam–Moody. Really, it's not the intention of the government to sever these principals and vice-principals from the bargaining unit of the BCTR That is not our intention. We view the principals and the vice-principals in a supervisory capacity. In other words, we view them as part of the management team. Therefore they should come under this particular legislation dealing with the senior management's compensation, because principals and vice-principals in most instances have large incomes in British Columbia. Under the circumstances I think there is a need for scrutiny of those incomes to ensure that there is some fairness in the application of salaries. The member suggests that these people will not wish to sever their connection with their colleagues. Of course they'll continue to be able to work with their colleagues in the school. These principals and vice-principals might not be able to meet with them down at the annual general meeting of the BCTF in Vancouver if they're severed here. Nevertheless, any relationships and friendships that were established some years ago would be ongoing. We're saying essentially: they either want to be part of management or they don't. They don't necessarily have to accept a principal's or vice-principal's position. So they have the option of becoming part of the management team. That's what this legislation essentially says. The proposed exemption amendment which the member wishes to introduce is not acceptable to the government.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I assume that for every piece of legislation that's introduced there has been some compelling reason. In defence of inclusion of senior managers in this kind of a review process, I've heard the name of Fritz Bowers thrown out, for instance, in connection with being the senior manager of the city of Vancouver. Now we're talking about principals. I heard, for instance, in this House that he makes more money than the Premier. I know we're not talking about city managers; we're talking about principals and vice-principals under this amendment. If that is the reason for considering that type of senior manager, I would like to know from the minister what reason there is, then, for including principals and vice-principals who, to the best of my knowledge, are part of a total collective agreement, not separate contracts. It was my idea that the concern the government had in this area was that certain management people had special individual contracts. I would ask the minister if, to his knowledge, there is any principal or vice-principal that has an individual contract.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'm not the superintendent or the secretary-treasurer of the school board, and I wouldn't be privy to that kind of information. Nevertheless, we are saying that for the purposes of this section we deem principals and vice-principals to be part of a management team. It's not an attempt to erode the bargaining unit of the BCTF at all. It's just that we view the role of supervisory and management, and under these circumstances we want to include them in this section. Therefore we're not prepared to accept the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: The principle of the bill to which the House agreed in second reading was for restraint in the public sector.

HON. MR. CHABOT: This section goes beyond restraint.

[ Page 2709 ]

MR. NICOLSON: It certainly does seem to be going beyond restraint. Now we have the minister saying that he wants this section to stand unamended. The minister hasn't said so in so many words, but I gather that he is opposed to the amendment put forward by my colleague.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: He did say that? Well, in a few thousand well-chosen words, he did say, I guess, that he was against it.

Mr. Chairman, this explanation, then, is that the government wants this simply because they view principals and vice-principals to be management, not labour. There's no other reason — it's in their view. But then he says that perhaps certain secretary-treasurers might want to take some action with this, or they might not want to.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I never said that.

MR. NICOLSON: You used the term "secretary treasurers"....

HON. MR. CHABOT: I said I wasn't a school superintendent or a secretary-treasurer, so I would have some difficulty knowing whether there is a secret contract out there with the principal.

[10:15]

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, if there is a secret contract out there, I would think that it would be contrary to the 80-some agreements signed between the various members of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, the various associations, and the various school boards. To the minister's knowledge there are no special contracts, so there is no need.... Now what are the powers of Mr. Peck? Mr. Peck's powers are to review contracts, not to decide whether people are management or not management. But now we are seeking to put into his powers some powers to decide, or we are now deciding that principals and vice-principals, who by the very definition of "principal" are teachers — first among equals.... Now we are trying to create a division.

Mr. Chairman, I am in favour of this amendment because if the government succeeds in creating this distinction it will create an agitation, I suppose, to drive the wedge further. If the government is defining principals and vice-principals as being management, then the obvious counter-move is for the teachers to seek to have them ruled out of the area of teaching — to have them out of the classroom. In a job description you can't do that. I think that that is a very retrograde step. I personally don't care how large a school a principal supervises, if he doesn't carry at least one classload a year, I don't believe that he is doing his job. I believe a principal must always have that immediate contact with the students. This particular amendment would make sure that that doesn't happen.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I do believe that some people employed by school boards in supervisory positions — and notice that the amendment does not go that far; the amendment just talks about principals and vice-principals, not about supervisors — obviously don't go in and teach classes. So this is a well-considered amendment. I think there might be a perceived problem, analogous, for instance, to the problem in which many people have talked about city managers. We know that there is some problem perceived by that side about people in supervisory positions. That might be the supervisor of elementary education or the superintendent hired by the school board under a special contract. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, does not seek to go against the entire principle of section 6(l)(a)(ii) ; it simply amends by taking out "principal and vice-principal." I've certainly heard some off-the-record comments by some members of the government opposite that the drafting of this bill leaves something to be desired. Mr. Chairman, I think that as it does leave something to be desired, the House really should consider this amendment. I think we really should take some time to consider the amendment. For that reason I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, in response to the member from Nelson–Creston, I would just like to say, dealing with the question of senior managers' compensation, that the compensation stabilization commissioner has given the government a report on the compensation levels for senior managers across the public sector. It is obvious to us from this report that there are inconsistencies in the levels of compensation for senior managers. In some instances where we might consider jobs to have a similar pay level, one person may earn as much as 40 percent more than the average wage for that job category, while another may earn as much as 40 percent less. Discrepancies occur both within a particular organization as well as across a particular class or type of public sector employer. We want to ensure that there is greater uniformity, consistency and equity in the compensation levels for these senior managers working in the public sector. This section allows us to do this, and allows us to do it in a fair and reasonable manner. This section stands almost on its own, separate from the rest of Bill 3. Essentially it gives the government the power to regulate the salaries of senior managers in the public sector.

There are two principles in this bill. One brings some fairness and equity, some comparability for comparable jobs in the public sector of British Columbia. The other part of the bill addresses restraint in the public sector. What we're attempting to do is to bring about some uniformity of salary base in the province regarding jobs of comparable value, I guess.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, assuming that these disparities of up to 40 percent exist in the cases of principals and vice-principals, these are all part of collective agreements. Their levels of compensation are part of total collective agreements between a teachers' association — not between a principals' association but a teachers' association — and a local school board. If the commissioner reviews a collective agreement and decides it must be cut back, and he has been looking at the total package, is the commissioner now, when he decides...? For instance, there were some collective agreements last year that I think came in around 6 percent, and they were sent back by the commissioner. After some reductions they came back in the 3 or 4 percent range, and then the commissioner accepted them. He looked at the total package: teachers, principals, benefits such as medical, guaranteed income maintenance, and things like that. I'm

[ Page 2710 ]

asking the minister whether the commissioner is going to be looking at mass rollbacks of 40 percent on existing levels, or is he still going to be looking at total packages?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that the compensation stabilization commissioner wouldn't be contemplating rollbacks of 40 percent. That would be most unfair.

MR. NICOLSON: Then why do you need this?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm just saying that we're determined to bring some degree of comparability over a period of time.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the commissioner has the power to look at these collective agreements. For instance, in the Nelson District Teachers' Association, the principals' and vice-principals' allowances are part of that collective agreement. So why does the commissioner need this power now?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the member can attempt to include the principals and vice-principals in the collective agreement, but after passage of this legislation they will be deemed to be senior management and exempt from the bargaining unit as well. They therefore will be subject to this legislation, as all senior management staff in the British Columbia public sector will be.

MR. ROSE: I'm interested in what the minister has had to say. Yes, we tend to be skeptical and suspicious of new things, especially when they seem to be a replay of some very old things. It looks to me as if the government has looked over the collective agreements and has decided that the range of awards can no longer be tolerated. Therefore we can't have individual collective agreements any more because they reward some people more than others, and there tends to be leap-frogging. That's true. There does tend to be leap-frogging. But instead of coming out and saying, "Look, what we really want here is provincewide bargaining with a cap on it by Mr. Peck," he's going to be the head of it all.

Within the context of what the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has planned — roughly 2 percent less per year for the next three years — plus a 19 percent inflation rate compounded over the next three years, it means we are cutting the school budgets by 25 percent across British Columbia. We have here a situation where the principals and vice-principals become managers and therefore come under Mr. Peck, along with the superintendents and presumably along with the deputy minister. What I see here is a ladder — a hierarchy — where the deputy minister has to make the most. We couldn't get superintendents here 20 years ago because the deputy minister was so low paid, and the superintendents had to make less than the deputy minister when they were part of the civil service. Those superintendents, if there are any of them still around, haven't forgotten that. Nobody would want to go from a principalship, which was bargainable, to the position of a superintendent — that is, anybody with a really good job in a school system — because he would take a cut if he became a superintendent. What I see here is that the deputy minister will be the top — he comes under Mr. Peck, because he's senior — followed by the superintendents, probably the head superintendent, and then the various new ones appointed....

HON. MR. CHABOT: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. The member for Coquitlam–Moody is attempting to establish a pecking order as far as compensation is concerned.

MR. ROSE: That's right.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Really, his proposed amendment, which I've already indicated I'm not prepared to accept, does not address the pecking order and the superintendents and the ongoing promotions of principals and vice-principals and so forth. What his amendment precisely does is attempt to remove the principal and the vice-principal from the provisions of this section. I think he should address that particular issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I suppose this is one of those situations that could be looked at in two separate ways. I've been listening very carefully to the member for Coquitlam–Moody, and he seems to be striving to speak precisely to his amendment; but it's quite easy, I suppose, to stray just a little bit. Maybe we don't need the specifics, hon. member, as opposed to maybe a little more rhetoric related directly to your reasons for wanting these people removed from the bill.

MR. ROSE: What I am attempting to say, speaking directly to my amendment, is that if you remove vice-principals and principals from the bargaining unit, you destroy that bargaining unit as far as those particular positions are concerned. If you then go further, you will find that the likely result will be some sort of hierarchy of salary scales — but not one not bargained individually by principals and vice-principals within a particular district, not an agreement by a board to hire a particular superintendent at a particular salary. If you tie the vice-principals to the superintendents to the deputy ministers and put them all under Mr. Peck, you're going to have a hierarchy of salaries, each one, in terms of its position, stepping down from the other. It would be inconceivable that a superintendent would make more than a deputy minister. That was not the case in the past until it became a matter of local option. That's when it occurred. That's why we're concerned about a return to it. What we would have then is the vice-principal earning less than the principal, and we would agree with that. The next one on the pecking order used to be the supervisor. He was $100 less than the lowest-paid principal — always, no matter what he did; whether he was reading supervisor, music supervisor or whatever in certain cities such as Vancouver. And below that would be the highest-paid teacher.

So established here is a hierarchy of salaries and the destruction of collective bargaining; the establishment of a provincewide bargaining basis, if there's any bargaining left under Mr. Peck. All individual autonomy and budget control is gone. That's going to be the result, and that's exactly what we're concerned about.

[10:30]

MRS. DAILLY: I rise to support the amendment brought in by the NDP opposition. I won't go over all the reasons that have been presented so well by the two members who just

[ Page 2711 ]

spoke. I just want to add a couple of my own points, Mr. Chairman.

It's really ironic that we should be sitting here debating a major change — and it is a major change. Not only is a very basic practical change in the school system going to be created by this, but a very strong psychological change in the whole atmosphere that exists between principals and their staffs. I find it ironic that we should be debating this with the Provincial Secretary, who is not involved in education. The Minister of Education is sitting here, and I give him credit in that he's been listening to the debate when he hasn't been sleeping. We can understand the reason for that. But I want to make the point that once again we have a unilateral decision. It is the government who makes the decisions on these all-night sittings, so there should be no complaints about them. I hope the fact that we're faced again with a very unilateral decision does not in your opinion mean that being elected gives you rights to move in on long-accepted practices in institutions that are not really under your purview. I think the whole matter of education is one about which the Provincial Secretary is not knowledgeable enough to make a major move, and this is what you are doing with this legislation.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, for years there have been many, many discussions on the whole area of the....

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to be able to continue without having to put up with all the irrelevancies which we always get from the irrelevant minister.

Mr. Chairman, my point is that for years there have been many discussions on the role of the principals related to the teachers within the whole structure of our educational system. But the principals and teachers themselves have discussed this many times. They have not asked, after all this discussion, to have any major change made.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: They have not asked for this change. I would like to know why....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: You know, that kind of talk will just keep me on my feet more and more, Mr. Chairman, as you know. I guess he wants me to continue.

Why would this Provincial Secretary suddenly decide to move in on an area that is, frankly, beyond his competence to be moving in on? Therefore I want to ask him: did he have any consultation with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)? Does the Minister of Education agree with this move? Who did you discuss this with? Did you discuss it with any of the principals and administrators of our province? Or have you once again decided that because you have your mandate, as you say, you can move in on major changes in education also?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, very briefly, Mr. Chairman, yes, the Minister of Education has had input into this legislation and these provisions. I guess during his estimates you'll have an opportunity of asking him whether he's had consultation with the principals. I've talked to two principals, who've indicated to me that they're....

AN HON. MEMBER: Only two?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, only two. There's only 70....

MR. LEA: Tony Brummet and who else?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, no. Not members of the Legislative Assembly. There are only 70....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to reiterate that these two principals I talked to expressed an interest in being considered as part of the management team. This legislation essentially does that. In view of the excellent input given to me by the Minister of Education, I have no alternative but to once again express my rejection and my objection to the proposed amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister has said that by this act they're going to separate...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please! Please continue.

MR. NICOLSON: ...vice-principals and principals from the rest of the bargaining unit, but the collective bargaining rights of teachers can still be found in the School Act. I would direct the minister's attention to the definition of teacher:

"...a person holding a valid and subsisting certificate of qualification issued by the ministry who is appointed or employed by a board to give tuition or instruction or to administer or supervise instructional service in a public school, and includes a person to whom is issued under this act a letter of permission for teaching, but does not include a person appointed by a board as superintendent of schools or assistant superintendent of schools."

So it's very clear, Mr. Chairman, that principals and vice-principals continue to be — and I don't want to go into section 123 of the act, which goes through the collective bargaining process — under the jurisdiction of the School Act. I've looked ahead in this bill and the only exclusions or the only notwithstanding part of the bill in section 7 deals with the Public Service Act. So I can't accept the explanation given by the minister that they're going to....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: You can't either. Well, I would.... I admire the minister. He's been here a long time. He's been forthright in bringing answers. I certainly have given that some thought over the past few hours. But I think this bill is improperly drafted. If that's what the minister intended, then that isn't accomplished. Then we come back to the problem of why these people should be brought into

[ Page 2712 ]

this definition of senior managers, because this does not supersede the School Act. The act that this does supersede is the Public Service Act.

This bill is a mess in this respect. At least this is one little thing that could be tidied up simply by accepting my colleague's amendment.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in support of the amendment which was submitted by my colleague for Coquitlam–Moody. I want to bring to the minister's attention that when we or school boards or the government are calculating pupil-teacher ratios in the schools for reasons of financing, or for any other reason, the principal and vice-principal and the supervisors are included as part of the teaching component. Now what this....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, the member for Burnaby–Edmonds is embarking upon an issue that has no relationship whatsoever to the proposed amendment here. She's starting to talk about the pupil-teacher ratio and how the principal and vice-principal are included in the calculations, and so forth. And she'll never be on the proposed amendment. She'll always be on the fringe of it, sometimes far away and at other times, oh, not too far away, but never specifically on the amendment. I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Chairman, that you should bring that member to order and make sure that if she wants to speak, that she speak to the proposed amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I believe the member is well aware of the requirement to be relevant in her remarks, and the Chair will monitor what she says very closely. Please continue.

MS. BROWN: Well, Mr. Chairman, it always takes a little bit longer to explain things to that minister, so I'm going to go very slowly and show him the connection between the statements I make by repeating them and the section of the bill.

What the amendment does is suggest that the section of the bill that includes principals, vice-principals and supervisors as senior managers should be deleted. What I'm trying to give is an example of why the amendment should be supported.

I'm saying that in every other instance, when we are looking at the education system, we accept that principals, vice-principals and supervisors are part of the teaching component. Now, lo and behold, for this bill and this bill only, they are being split off and the minister is telling us that they are now part of a management team. If we were to carry through on this, then we'd have to be consistent in other pieces of legislation. And then principals, vice-principals and supervisors should not be considered to be part of the teaching component — for example, when we are calculating pupil-teacher ratios. We can't have it both ways. We have to be consistent.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A point of order, Mr. Chairman, again, the member came close to the amendment, but now she's drifting away from the proposed amendment. The amendment put forward by the member for Coquitlam–Moody strictly suggests that principals and vice-principals should not be included in this particular section of the legislation for the purposes of determining compensation under this legislation. That's specifically and only what we're dealing with — his amendment to remove the principals and vice-principals from the effects of the regulation of compensation under the senior managers compensation package. She shouldn't really be able to debate much more than that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. The member will please keep her remarks directly to the amendment regarding the deletion of section 6(1)(a)(ii).

MS. BROWN: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, my remarks have been very close. They've been absolutely in order. However....

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, they haven't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It's all a matter of opinion. Will you proceed, please?

MS. BROWN: That's right. I'm going to proceed despite the harassment. But I've been given permission to proceed. When you get tired of what I have to say, you can rise to your feet again and continue to harass me.

However, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't make sense....

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: You're harassing the House by being out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: It doesn't make sense, Mr. Chairman, to say for the purposes of this bill that principals, vice-principals and supervisors are not part of the teaching component, when we turn right around and say that they are part of the teaching component when we are calculating in other areas in the field of education. I'm saying we have to be consistent.

Now either principals, vice-principals and supervisors are part of the teaching component or they're not. The amendment submitted to the Chair by the member for Coquitlam–Moody (Mr. Rose) suggests that they are part of the teaching component, and as such they cannot be broken off for the purposes of this bill.

In support of his legislation, the minister says that they are management. They're not teachers; they're part of the management team. In other words, he sees teachers as being quite separate from principals, vice-principals and supervisors. In speaking in support of the amendment, I would suggest that he is incorrect. Principals, vice-principals and supervisors are teachers. You cannot even become a principal, Mr. Chairman, without being a teacher. You can't become a vice-principal without being a teacher. You have to be covered by the act.

MRS. JOHNSTON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we have been hearing the same arguments over and over and the same statements over and over. Would you please bring the member to order? The repetition is getting rather boring.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member makes a good point. The Chair has been listening very carefully to all of the debate that has come forward on this amendment, and it is becoming repetitious. The subject has been very well debated to this point. If the hon. member has something new to add, the Chair would be pleased to listen to her; otherwise, the

[ Page 2713 ]

Chair would request, with all due deference, that she take her place.

MS. BROWN: Is the Chair depriving me of my right to speak?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Absolutely not.

MS. BROWN: Then I will continue to speak. And I have always been in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, there's only one Chairman....

[10:45]

MS. BROWN: Because the member for Surrey says it's boring, that doesn't mean it's not in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, one moment, please. Could I point out that as far as I am aware, there is only one Chairman in this room, so we should not have remarks coming from around the chamber that would rightfully be the prerogative of the Chairman. Hon. member, would you please, without any preamble, get back to your speech and keep it relative to the amendment that is before us.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, my comments on the amendment are that I support the amendment. Is that in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's in order.

MS. BROWN: The reason I support the amendment is because it supports the concept that principals, vice-principals and supervisors are teachers. Is that in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that's in order, but you've said that four times.

MS. BROWN: But you earlier ruled that I was straying from the principle. Now I'm checking with you after each sentence to find out whether I am in order or not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I do not choose to enter into any arguments with the hon. member. I would only ask her that she be relevant with respect to this debate or that she take her seat.

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that. What was that? Would you repeat that, Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I said that I did not wish to enter into any argument with the hon. member, but only to ask her if she would please proceed to speak to the amendment that's before us and to speak to it in a relevant way.

MS. BROWN: I support the amendment submitted by the member for Coquitlam–Moody (Mr. Rose) because it puts forth the concept that principals, vice-principals and supervisors are part of the teaching component in the education system. If we accept the legislation as it is submitted by the Provincial Secretary.... Under section l(a) it says that members, principals, or any other teacher who is employed by a school board who holds a supervisory position or who holds a position that is designated under subsection (2) as a senior management position comes under the compensation stabilization and under the jurisdiction of Mr. Peck. I'm saying that that is essentially incorrect because teachers, vice-principals, principals or any other teacher who is employed by the school board and who holds a supervisory position is also a teacher. For the purposes of this act, as for the purposes of any other act, he should be considered to be a teacher. The end result of accepting this legislation put forward by the principal would be to separate one group of teachers....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm sorry, but you are repeating yourself over and over and over again. If you have nothing further to say, the Chair would ask you to take your seat.

MS. BROWN: If we accepted this legislation as it is before us, the result would be to separate one group of teachers from another group of teachers. I have not said that before; this is the first time I am saying that. Two things would happen if we would do that. Firstly, we set up an adversary system within the school system itself. I think the Chairman would agree that that is a state of affairs which should be avoided at all costs. Teachers, principals, vice-principals and supervisors for the most part support the concept that they are teachers and that they want to remain part of the teacher's bargaining system. I have not said that before either. However, the minister stated that he has spoken to two principals.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I rise under standing order 43, which is quite explicit. Essentially it says that a member cannot repeat that which has been said by another member. Although the member may be quite in order with what she is now saying — in saying that she hasn't said it before — it's been said over and over in the last hour and a half by other members on that side of the House. In this regard, I would ask that, in adherence to standing order 43, you bring this member to order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, what my colleagues are trying to point out is the fact that these people are different than other government managers. Traditionally these people have been part of a team. Teachers who have found their way into administration have become the senior members of the team. It's straightforward. The government is reaching out too far in terms of centralization and controlling everything that goes on in this province. The one thing I find in discussions with people across the province is the fact that government centralization is the area of chief concern. What the government is doing here is part of the package of taking direct control of the schools through the administrators. They have the administrators directly under their thumbs in terms of setting their salaries and so on. That is really what this is all about. Again, it's just a question of further centralizing government authority in an area that has traditionally been quite outside the government's direct sphere of influence. This is direct control, and the minister has to 'fess up to that. The fact of the matter is that he hasn't given us one solid reason why he is treating this group of administrators in a different way than they have been traditionally treated or why he should put

[ Page 2714 ]

them in the package with the rest of the administrators working for the government.

It's very interesting to me that these things happen after the fact. It's been pointed out that Mr. Olsen, director of Hydro operations, had a 27 percent increase over the last two years.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Was it 47? In any event, a major increase. He's saying here that because somebody somewhere said there's a group of people who have come through the school system and have risen to be administrators — both principals and vice-principals, who in the view of some, have comparatively high salaries — the government is going to take care of that situation. Mr. Chairman, the government isn't going to take care of that situation. The only way you can properly care for a situation like this is to have some kind of cooperative effort. But they don't want a cooperative effort; they want confrontation with every segment of society that they can find. They're doing it here. They're going quite outside the minister's purview. Can you imagine the Provincial Secretary responsible for a bill that directly affects an area quite outside his responsibility? He goes to the Minister of Education....

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I see that now the works are all set to go. We have the Chairman in the chair and, no doubt, somebody ready to move a closure motion. It's very interesting. It just so happened that the Chairman came back in at this precise moment.

Anyway, I would ask the minister to tell us why it is that he's moving into territory altogether outside his normal jurisdiction. What is his defence in opposition to this properly worded and proffered amendment?

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Burnaby–Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: I defer to the member moving closure, Mr. Chairman.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the member for Burnaby–Edmonds, who has repeated herself for hours and hours in support of this amendment. I would move that the question be now put.

Question approved on the following division:

YEAS — 24

NAYS — 7

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question proposed by the member for Coquitlam–Moody (Mr. Rose) is that sub-subsection 6(1)(a)(ii) be deleted.

[11:00]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 7

NAYS — 25

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move the amendment to section 6(3)(c) standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion as proposed by the minister, the amendment to section 6(3)(c), is now moved and debate begins, and members concerned with other parts not on the order paper can debate them when we consider the whole section as amended.

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 6(4) standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 6(5)(a) standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

[ Page 2715 ]

MR. COCKE: The speed with which these amendments are going, one has to find.... They don't give us the line on the order paper.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Okay. No problem.

MR. NICOLSON: Section 6(5)(a) will then say that nothing in or done under this section affects any term or condition of a contract of employment for a fixed term that is entered into before July 7, 1983. Why was it found necessary to remove the words "or period"?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It is a clarification. It removes an ambiguity.

MR. NICOLSON: A redundancy.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, not a redundancy.

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper, adding subsections (5.1), (5.2) and (5.3) to section 6.

On the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: This is amending section 6 and adding a new section, right? New subsection (5.1) says: "A contract that is, after July 7, 1983, renewed or extended is not, after the renewal or extension, a contract within the meaning of subsection (5)(a)." Also, "Where a contract for a fixed term contains an option to terminate the contract before the expiry of the fixed term, and the option...."

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) will come to order, please. One point of clarification for the member: we will include subsections (5.2) and (5.3) in this.

MR. NICOLSON: Subsection (5.3): "A person is not entitled to damages by reason of his compensation being limited, reduced or affected under this section." Why are we even giving access to the courts if a person is not entitled to damages?

HON. MR. CHABOT: This subsection clarifies it that when an individual's salary is reduced, he can't claim the damages for what he might consider to be constructive dismissal.

[11:15]

MR. NICOLSON: If a contract were signed and ratified effective, say, July 8, would benefits that might have been extended under the terms and conditions of that contract be recoverable retroactively?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No.

MR. NICOLSON: In other words, if there were some special benefits paid out in the time that this.... I suppose that in a way this bill has been sitting on the order paper. Anything that has been paid out up to that date is not recoverable. But then they would have to cease and desist as of what date? What then would be the operative date for this section?

HON. MR. CHABOT: After the regulations were put into place, we would then give some time for compliance.

MR. LEA: Subsection 6(5.3) says: "A person is not entitled to damages by reason of his compensation being limited, reduced or affected under this section." Why was it necessary to put that in? What's that taking care of?

HON. MR. CHABOT: We're not going to accept the principle of damage for what one individual might deem to be constructive dismissal.

MR. LEA: In other words, what we're doing in this legislation is saying to the courts, I suppose: one of the things that you cannot find is that someone has been damaged; you might find it, but there is no compensation for the damage. Even if the court finds in its wisdom that there should be damages, what this does is preclude any payment or compensation to an individual. Is that it?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The information that I have is that if an individual's salary is reduced, he may leave his position of his own volition because of that fact. Then he may attempt to seek compensation for what he deems to be constructive dismissal. We say there will be no damage award, so far as constructive dismissal is concerned — we don't deem it to be constructive dismissal.

MR. LEA: If that were the only case that this was going to apply to, then there might be some reason to put it in. But it is very limiting for the courts. This only applies to this section, but I couldn't see anything wrong with leaving this for a review by the courts. All you would have to do to leave it in for review by the courts is delete (5.3), if you want to be specific on what the minister has said, to put it in specifically to cover that specific problem if it arises. But to leave this in in a generality really limits the court for action by an individual. It seems to me that if that's not the kind of limitation that the minister or the government want, then it shouldn't be left in as it is.

Is the minister determined that it's going to remain in? If he is, I guess there's nothing more to be said. But I think the minister is really playing high and loose with this one, because it's limiting the court when in this case limiting the court may be to limit justice. The minister doesn't even want to do that; he just wants it in for a specific reason. But he's going to limit everything under this section.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, it's essentially not limiting the court; it's limiting the individual's right to deem constructive dismissal.

Interjection.

[ Page 2716 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes. Well, it is limiting the courts as well, I guess, in awarding compensation for essentially what could be construed as constructive dismissal.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to have this absolutely clear; perhaps it has already been answered. It would appear to me that what might have been intended in this way of drafting a bill is that.... Section (5.3) says: "A person is not entitled to damages by reason of his compensation being limited, reduced or affected under this section." Just prior to that we're talking about contracts signed after July 7. I think it was intended that it be taken in that context when it was drafted: where a contract is signed after July 7 and then certain terms and conditions of it are ruled null and void, a person is not entitled to damages under that. But what it really says is: "...is not entitled to damages by reason of his compensation being limited, reduced or affected under this section."

That section, then, is going to be anything that is numbered.... In fact it becomes even.... What is meant by "this section"? Anything numbered 5? Anything numbered 6? Section 6 is amended by adding a subsection (5.3). It says here that (5.3) is a subsection. Then is it a subsection to section 6 or section 5? If section 6 is amended by adding a subsection (5.3), does this then apply to section 5 or to section 6? If it applies to section 5, it applies to this new section about judicial review. But I think that it was probably intended to apply to these subsections (5.1), (5.2) and (5.3) which were introduced under section 6.

You know, it is a terrible piece of drafting. I believe that more than one cabinet minister over there has agreed, off the record, that it is terrible drafting.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Very straightforward.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I'm telling you that it's on your head. If you want to persist with it, go ahead. I'm not even going to call a division on this section. But it's on your head. I think that the minister should probably move that we rise, because if he's trying to accomplish something by this.... If we on this side want to accomplish mischief, then we should let this thing go through with all due haste, so the government doesn't have a chance to recover. But if the government wants to see this section go through somehow orderly, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that they go and do a bit more homework. I would take whoever drafted this thing and I'd bring in a special bill imposing fines, punishments and perhaps imprisonment down in the basement here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just to assist: the amendments are to subsection (5) of section 6, and they would follow as (5.1), (5.2) and (5.3) after (a), (b), and (c) under subsection (5). Bottom of page 4.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, amendment (5.3) says a person is not entitled to damages. But if you go back to what it's amending, 6(l), which would fall under amendment (5.3), then you're looking at something that describes compensation and says: " 'Compensation' means all forms of pay, benefits and perquisites paid or provided, directly or indirectly, by or on behalf of a public sector employer to or for the benefit of an employee." So the fact is that someone could be going to court, not on their pay, but maybe on their pension benefits that they feel grieved over, but this section says that they cannot get damages even if the court finds that there have been damages — that there can be no compensation from the court.

The last time we've seen a public work by this drafter is.... I believe, Mr. Chairman, he may have been the person who painted a number of those paintings we see down in the members' dining-room, because that's the last time I've ever seen anything that looked like this. The crime — and it is a crime if this goes through — is that I believe the government agrees with the opposition that it's a terribly drafted bill, that we're probably going to end up in constitutional battles, court battles, it's going to cost the people a lot of money, and it's just going to cause havoc. I think even the minister, after spending the night here and going through this bill, understands that it is drafted in such a way that it's going to be very difficult to apply this act even after it's passed.

I can't speak for the opposition as a whole, but we may be even willing to forgo second reading if they would take back this bill and bring something back that makes sense. If the object of these amendments is to avoid second reading of this legislation, then maybe we could make a deal, because this is terrible.

[11:30]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, it doesn't make sense for us to pass an amendment that doesn't make sense, so maybe the minister will explain again: does this thing say that any contract which has been negotiated prior to July 7 is protected, and if a person goes to court based on this contract being violated, then he can get compensation? Is that what it says? However, if the contract was entered into after July 7, then that person cannot get compensation; is that what it's saying?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I'll just clarify one last time that subsection (5.3) is designed to prevent claims for damages for breach of contract in circumstances where senior managers' salaries or contractual arrangements are reduced under this section. We're just saying that we're not going to accept lawsuits or damage claims for constructive dismissal. Our intention is very clear on that particular section. That's my third time in responding to that.

MS. BROWN: That may be clear, but that's not the way it's written here. This is the point, Mr. Chairman, that we're running into problems with. That's not what these two sections say. What the minister is saying is that when this bill becomes law, Mr. Peck can roll back the salary of a principal on the grounds that it's too high. If the principal negotiated that salary prior to July 7, there is some protection for that principal. However, if the principal negotiated that salary after July 7, there is no compensation based on the decision to roll that salary back. Is that what the minister is saying?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) says that's what the minister is saying, but the Provincial Secretary isn't saying that that's what he's saying.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Could I just one more time — for the fourth time now — read the section. I think it's fairly clear. Section 6(5.3) says if a person's compensation is limited, reduced or affected by reason of the application of

[ Page 2717 ]

section 6, that person is not entitled to any damages. The intention is very clear.

MS. BROWN: I'm not sure that even if this is written in law it would be legal to do that to begin with. So I don't see how we can support this section. We're opposed to it.

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.

On section 6.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, after having had considerable consultative input on this section, and after having had an opportunity to contemplate these subsections (6) and (7) overnight, I therefore move that subsections (6) and (7) of section 6 be deleted.

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE: Isn't that exciting, Mr. Chairman! We can now rip up our amendment — which would never have been accepted, but in any event we had exactly the same amendment. The only breath of fresh air that has happened around here in the last 24 hours has been the deletion of this....

HON. MR. GARDOM: This is one of many good breaths.

MR. COCKE: Come off it!

Mr. Chairman, you'll note that there are no drafting problems here, because it's just a simple deletion of two subsections, (6) and (7), which means that there are no $2,000 fines for the employers. However, I note that the employees are still being pushed around. In any event, this is at least a move in the right direction. I guess hours and hours of contemplation and debate, and probably a caucus decision, have wrought this miracle in this House. It's the first time we've seen anything like good sense coming out of that group for an awfully long time.

MR. ROSE: I'm not opposed to the amendment; I think it's a sensible thing. I doubt if it's enforceable in the courts anyway. As a member of a public body or a board, I have to accept the collective viewpoint of the board, even though I might agree with the directive.

I have a technical question that I wish to ask. In this act it's called a direction. In Bill 6, dealing with the budget, it was called a directive. What I would like to know is whether there is any definition of a "direction" in this act. It still remains in certain parts of section 6, even though it's been moved from 6(6) and 6(7).

MR. CHAIRMAN: That might be better discussed, hon. member, when we return to the main section as amended.

MR. ROSE: I’ll just have to say it all over again. Anyway, I'll give the question as notice for when we return to it.

[11:45]

Amendment approved unanimously on a division.

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

On section 6 as amended.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of amendments to introduce as well, so maybe the minister would just like to sit back and relax.

First of all, in subsection (2) of section 6, where it says that the compensation stabilization commissioner by regulation should designate a list of senior management positions. Is there any recourse for either an individual or a group of individuals who do not want to be designated as senior management to appeal that designation?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair]

HON. MR. CHABOT: I guess I could simply say the answer is no. It will be up to the compensation stabilization commissioner to determine those who will be included into the designation of senior management. I forget the criteria of the dollar figure; I wouldn't want to mislead by giving you a dollar figure. It's in the vicinity of $50,000 or $55,000 annual salary range that would determine those that get into the senior manager category.

MS. BROWN: So if an individual or a group wanted to be exempted from that designation, the person they would have to appeal to would be the commissioner — the same person who included them on the list. Has the minister ever thought of allowing them another direction of appeal?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to subsection (3), to the first line. It says in the original bill: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations...." I would like the words "make regulations" to be deleted and to insert instead, "publish guidelines." The sentence would now read: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may publish guidelines that he considers necessary or advisable to achieve uniformity and fairness of compensation...."

Mr. Chairman, while you are looking at that amendment, I'm moving this because I think that for the cabinet to take

[ Page 2718 ]

unto itself this responsibility of making regulations is another instance where the cabinet is eroding the power of local government. I'm speaking specifically now of school boards, for example. If the bill is allowed to go through as it now stands, it means that the cabinet is taking away from the school board the right to establish the criteria for compensation for senior managements employed by them.

Look at municipal senior managers. This section, if it's allowed to stand as it is, means that the cabinet is taking unto itself powers that should rest with the duly elected municipal government, the councillors at the municipal level. It is appropriate that if there is to be a change it should be done at that level, not by the cabinet itself.

This is the kind of centralization that we're opposed to. We're not opposed to the cabinet issuing guidelines and suggesting to municipal councils or to school boards that they should try to come as close to these guidelines as possible. To give them the right to make regulation is to enshrine it in stone. I think that that really is usurping power which should not rightfully be theirs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Wishing to be eminently fair with the hon. member, if her amendment as presented — it is very specific, referring to subsection (3), line 1 — were accepted, and went through the way it stands, it would make the rest of the section meaningless. I would point out to the hon. member, if she has the bill before her, line 6. You will find that it appears there again, hon. member. So you will appreciate that your amendment is really not in order the way it stands.

MS. BROWN: I have an amendment to deal with line 6. If the only reason it's being ruled out of order is that it's not consistent with line 6, I have an amendment to line 6 which would delete "make regulations" and insert instead "advise public sector employers." I could have done it all as one amendment. Is that the way it should have been done?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would suggest, hon. member, that that would be acceptable. Having explained that to the hon. member, and the hon. member having accepted the explanation, the amendment is in order, and you may speak to it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: What does that precisely do?

MR. CHAIRMAN: What it does, Mr. Minister, is that wherever the words "make regulations" appear — and I believe they appear only twice, once being in line 1 and the other in line 6 — they would be deleted, and the words "publish guidelines" would be inserted.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, in response to that, with the little chat that I've had with Sir Erskine May, he suggests to me that that would be inconsistent with the intent of this particular section. Being one who relies very heavily on Sir Erskine May and his various sermons about parliamentary rules, I have to go along with him that that particular amendment is out of order because it deletes the reference to regulations.

Let me clarify one thing, even though it may be out of order, in view of the fact that we're discussing.... I'm not ruling it out of order; that's not my right. I think the Chairman will address that issue at the very earliest opportunity. I want to say that at the moment it would appear that we would be issuing draft guidelines. It's not finally determined at this time, but that would be the essential approach we would like to take: the issuance of draft guidelines dealing with the matter of compensation. The way I view this particular section is that the regulations would be issued only under one circumstance: that is, in the event of non-compliance. So I look at regulations that are spelled out in this particular section and subsection as being an area in which there will be a final resort. The regulations are required to ensure that compliance does take place. There is a possibility that compliance will take place merely by the issuance of draft guidelines. I happen to hope that regulations won't be necessary. They would be issued only under extreme circumstances.

MR. COCKE: The minister has made all the arguments pertinent to our position that we could make if we stood here for the next three days. The fact of the matter is that it would only be under extreme circumstances that these regulations would ever be made or put forward. So under those circumstances I suggest to the minister that he vote for our amendment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's out of order.

MR. COCKE: It's not out of order. It's been declared in order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I don't believe you've rendered a judgment on that proposed amendment as yet, have you? I would like to know whether you're considering the amendment from the member for Burnaby–Edmonds (Ms. Brown) to be in order or not.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would members please take their seats for just a moment.

I respond to the minister and to the member for Burnaby–Edmonds. When the amendment was brought to the table — this was on a very cursory glance — I pointed out that the first amendment that came forward was difficult to accept inasmuch as the words "make regulations" appeared in more than one place. The mover of the amendment accepted that and passed forward a second amendment — actually the very same amendment but covering the same words in a different line. During the course of discussion from various members from the floor on various points of order in this respect, the Chair has been going through the balance of the section and finds that the words "regulation" and "the regulation" and "a regulation" appear in numerous places. This would give the Chair some indication to take some thought on the suggestion that changing it throughout would be a substantive change to the particular section of the act and to the intent of the section. On that basis the Chair would find it difficult to accept this amendment.

[12:00]

MR. NICOLSON: I thank the Chairman for not having yet ruled it out of order. He is just explaining some difficulty. This is obviously a case of magister magistret. "Let the Chair chair." The minister has twice intervened. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for not having precluded some debate on this amendment so that my colleague can continue.

[ Page 2719 ]

MR. ROSE: The minister gets up and says: "I really don't want to accept these changes because there's really nobody in here but us chickens. They are really just guidelines. I need them and I have to have them in three places because I don't intend to use them, or rarely would we ever have to use them." But I refer the Chair....

HON. MR. CHABOT: In the event of.

MR. ROSE: Yes, in the event you need to. Of course, if you don't need to.... Of course, you don't need any rule for that, do you? We don't need a law for speeding when no one speeds.

What we're suggesting here is that guidelines should be more acceptable because of the fact that we're dealing here with bodies that are autonomous and are elected without reference necessarily to the province. What concerns us about it here is that first, we don't even know if these are going to be published. Regulations may be gazetted. We don't know the relationship between regulations and guidelines and directives, because we really don't know either where the directives are going to be published. What I'm saying is that this is pretty firm stuff. If you use regulations there, then you authorize the minister, after cabinet has decided upon the regulations, to give direction to senior managers. Then it seems to me that the directions flow from the regulations. Is that not the case?

Further on down here, that if there is a conflict between a contract and a direction or a regulation, then the regulation prevails. Now what we would prefer is for a situation to prevail in which wide flexible guidelines are given to the various boards and public bodies that come under this section, because comparing rewards for senior managers within and among sections — especially among or between sections — is extremely difficult. Some of these things are not equatable. They are unique in a particular instance. Whereas if certain broad guidelines are permitted, that allows the people who are responsible, the elected people — or the appointed people, when it comes to some other kinds of boards or authorities or institutes — to have the freedom to operate within the local good and have the local conditions determine the nature of the reward, rather than having someone who is a complete outsider determine by regulation, and attempt to equate the inequatable. That's why we would prefer the publishing of guidelines, having these become recommendations to be followed; and if in the future these don't do the job the minister has contemplated, then stronger measures could be used. In the meantime, this puts all the power into the hands of the minister and the cabinet. We feel there is not much point in having locally elected autonomous bodies if they have to give up that kind of power to some senior body. That's essentially what we're concerned about.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, are we going to have a vote on the amendment? Is it in order or out of order? We just about had a vote on an amendment which I am not aware of, and I'm sure you haven't brought down a judgment as to whether that particular proposed amendment is in order or not.

I would like to suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the abolition of the word "regulations" from this particular section really would be inconsistent with the intent of the act, as I previous described. This section is permissive in nature; nevertheless, the regulations that are spelled out in this particular section may be required. I would hope they wouldn't be, but they may be required. Under those circumstances, the word "regulations" must remain in this subsection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to explain that the Chair deliberately did not make a fast ruling on the amendment that came forward, for the express purpose of allowing members, if they wanted to debate section 6 along the lines of the deletion and insertion of these words, to continue to do so. But since the matter has been brought forward again by the minister, the Chair has been advised that to amend section 6 in the number of places that would be required by the taking out of the word "regulations" and inserting the words "published guidelines" would in effect make the section meaningless. Therefore the amendment is out of order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, it is with regret that I challenge your ruling.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 14

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

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

On section 6 as amended.

[12:15]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, this is the most incredible power grab that we've ever witnessed. We have the cabinet assuming authority to make regulations that it considers necessary and advisable with respect to the payment and working conditions of senior managers in the public service, and in fact throughout the entire schedule of Bill 3. Why would a government want to assume that authority and strip away all local autonomy of school boards and municipalities with respect to compensation of senior managers? The demands of local government and school boards vary in their

[ Page 2720 ]

complexity, size and composition, the skills required and so on; and yet we have a we-know-best government.

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I know the first member for Victoria has just arrived, but we have been listening to his colleagues for the past number of hours repeating the same monotonous statements. I know you've been busy talking to the Clerk, Mr. Chairman, but I would hope you would bring this member to order. These items have been covered many, many times in the past number of hours.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair was just getting a little bit organized on the section that we're dealing with, and I'm sure that the hon. first member for Victoria will proceed in the prescribed manner and be relevant to the matter under debate.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound may have heard this once or twice before by a previous speaker, but when you have a provincial government that feels that it must strip away authority from local government, that has no confidence in local government and feels it must assume the authority for compensation....

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recite for the House part of standing order 43. Seeing as the member who was on his feet admitted that what he was saying had been said at least twice before in the House, I think it's only fitting that we in fact review the part of standing order 43 which reads: "...tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate." Mr. Chairman, that is of course totally out of order, and I would ask that you bring that member into order.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member for Omineca keeps getting up and reading from his little red book. What he keeps on saying — and it's continually repetition, repetition — is "arguments." They're not arguments, they are philosophical debates, and there is a difference between a philosophical debate and an argument. I think the member for Omineca should realize that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, there is no point of order there.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, the admission of the member who has just spoken is that the member for Victoria is making philosophical arguments in committee, where we're supposed to address the principles of each particular section and not make philosophical arguments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, the Chair would suggest that philosophy is for second reading and detail is for the committee. That's what we're here for.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think we should remind the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew that it's not a little red book; they happen to be the revered standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of this province. If he has no respect for it, it shows that he's following in the steps of his leader.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That also was not a point of order. We're having difficulty getting points of order. Insofar as the hon. first member for Victoria is concerned, if the hon. member has some new ideas to put forward in respect to section 6, the Chair would be more than pleased to hear them. Otherwise, the Chair will be compelled to invoke section 43 of our standing orders. If the member would continue under those circumstances, we would be pleased to listen.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, it's passing strange that a cabinet would want to assume the authority as superboss, superemployer. They assume they know everything about classification schemes, comparability and compensation, working conditions; the kinds of requirements that all school districts would need in terms of experience, training, length of service; the kinds of aspects that go into the merit principle; their entire classification schedule and so on. They feel they should be able to give direction to school districts and local government with respect to all of these compensatory factors.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

My question to the minister is: why do they feel they have to assume this authority? Why do they feel local government and school districts are incompetent in administering their own matters with respect to senior managers? We saw a provision under the senior managers' clause whereby the cabinet could get access to personnel files....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're way beyond the scope of this section. At this point you must return to the section. We are in committee on the bill; we are not in second reading debate. To the section as amended, please.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, it is demoralizing for a person who is a career administrator at the local government or school district level not to be able to respond and negotiate and deal in good faith with their local employer. The Social Credit cabinet here in Victoria — in these sumptuous, commodious offices that the cabinet ministers occupy — are then the managers and employers of all senior managers in local government at all levels.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, once again the member's debate is really more appropriate to second reading. We are on section 6 as amended; it is quite specific. There is much detail the member can discuss, but philosophical debate on the principle of the whole bill is definitely not in order. Now can the member advance new material with respect to section 6 as amended, or will the member have to take his place?

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a specific question of the minister with respect to 6(3)(a). It says that the cabinet, particularly his pen, will be making regulations to "(a) establish, maintain and apply systems of classification of senior managers and of job evaluation, following principles that ensure objectivity." I wonder if you could identify for me the systems that ensure objectivity.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I've sat here since 8 o'clock last night until 12:22 p.m. today, as well as from 4 to 6 p.m. yesterday, answering questions from members

[ Page 2721 ]

across the way, and attempting to answer each and every question put to me. I know that some have left and gone to bed, like the member for Victoria, who's just come out of bed. He comes in here fresh and doesn't know that the questions have been put to me under the various sections that he's referring to, talking about senior managers and the need for the regulating of senior managers' salaries in the public sector. He's asking me questions on the regulations on which there have been amendments time after time, and for which I've given clear definitions, and all I'm going to say to that member is if he can't be informed by his members across the way as to what has taken place in this debate, don't ask me to fill him in. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, I have no intention whatsoever of answering the question that member has just asked me, because I answered that question for over an hour while he was in bed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. Section 6(3)(a) was discussed at some length.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I think I have the reason why the first member for Victoria is having much difficulty in staying in order with his debate: that is, that we have been on section 6 now for about two hours, and after two hours there is absolutely nothing new you can possibly say about this section. Therefore I'll make it a little easier for the first member for Victoria, and I move the motion be now put.

Question approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 7

[12:30]

Section 6 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 7

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

On section 7.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, Section 7 contains an incredible principle that I think merits some debate: that is, that regulations made in the cabinet room without public debate supersede legislation debated and passed in this House. That's what section 7 says; that where there's a conflict between the Public Service Act and this act, or a regulation made under this act, this act or the regulation prevails. I don't have any objection in principle to a section which says that one act prevails over another, but to say that regulations prevail over legislation is a principle beyond any which we should accept, whatever our philosophical opinion about this legislation or the intent of this legislation.

In my view, we have for some time now been embarking on a very dangerous course of diminishing the power and the influence of this Legislature and increasing of the power and authority of cabinet. Here we have it in bold-face type: "where there is a conflict between the Public Service Act and this act or a regulation made under this act, this act or the regulation prevails." Now that, Mr. Chairman, is bad law, whatever end it attempts to achieve or whatever motive underlies its inclusion in this legislation. There is no possibility in my mind of any goal that any government might have that would warrant a section which would allow cabinet to usurp the power of this Legislature.

In the federal appeal courts in this country there is a very important court case going on in a similar situation, where the power of not just the legislative branch but of the cabinet is being challenged by the new constitution. That discussion, and this discussion, are very important to the future of this country. Are we going to say on the one hand an enshrined constitution supersedes legislative authority, and on the other hand, as is in this bill, the cabinet authority supersedes legislative authority? It is a wrong principle, objectionable in every possible sense. It's not a philosophical question about the intent of the legislation. It is a philosophical question about who has the legislative authority in this society, parliament or cabinet.

I thought that question was clear. I thought generations of parliamentarians and hundreds of years of history had led us to the point where parliament was supreme. In the federal scene we're moving in the direction where constitutions become more important than legislatures, and here in the province we're moving in the direction where the cabinet, in its secret meetings, becomes more important than the legislature. It's a dreadful principle, Mr. Chairman, and one that I oppose as strongly as I possibly can.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, when history is read, the attitude of the province of British Columbia will be held in utter amazement or, as my colleague says, contempt. I find it completely unreal that 35 members of the Social Credit Party can sit in their seats and be a part of a steamroller that is actually trampling rights that....

[ Page 2722 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're reflecting on other business. We are on section 7.

MR. MITCHELL: That is right, Mr. Chairman, and I'm glad you reinforced that I am on section 7.

We have a group of individuals who were elected the same as I was, the same as the other 21 members of my caucus, as part of a democracy, elected to a parliament that will bring in laws that are basically fair to every citizen of this province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I've listened fairly attentively to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew and he hasn't uttered one word that pertains to section 7.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is only advancing his argument. Perhaps the member will now get to the specific detail contained in section 7.

MR. MITCHELL: Specific detail of section 7.... I know the minister is being very attentive — he has sat there for a few hours now — but I think he has lost his perspective on what we are doing. We are bringing in section 7. A statement has been made in this House, which no one on that side has got up and defended — I don't know if they fought and screamed in caucus — that a cabinet in the province of British Columbia has the power to override legislation being passed in this House.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's not true!

MR. MITCHELL: That is true. This act or the regulation prevails — that is what this legislation is. This is what is happening in British Columbia because the Social Credit are determined to destroy contracts and free collective negotiations between elected bodies. They are determined to be God in themselves; in that cabinet they can do anything they want.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the section.

MR. MITCHELL: This is only one small section of the legislation, but it is eroding tradition. When you read it, when you go home and contemplate what you have done, you are going to be ashamed. I know you're going to make up excuses that we're going to have all public service employees equal, but what you have done is worse than what you intend to accomplish. You are not accomplishing something that historians will be proud of.

[12:45]

Other countries have had legislation that tramples on rights. There have been laws and dictatorships. But in this particular case 35 members of the Social Credit government are sitting back and not entering into debate. They're not standing up and making any valid arguments in favour of it. Mr. Chairman, I believe when the courts and the public finish with this, and when the real impact of what's happened to date in this whole session goes down in history, a lot of grandchildren will look back and be ashamed of their relatives who sat on the government side and steamrollered this through by closure, by lack of debate, by numbers.

Mr., Chairman, we're opposed to it; we're going on record as opposed to it. In representing the voters of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, I want to go on record that we are not going to sit back and debate legislation like this, and closure, without going on record that we're opposed.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I'm just following orders of the former Speaker in standing up and taking my place in this debate; he insisted that I be next. He's attempting to usurp the Chairman's duty as Speaker in exile. If only he were as good an Agriculture minister as he was a Speaker. However, we'll deal with that during his estimates, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure you'll make sure that I do.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) says we're not going to have estimates this year. Well, next year maybe we won't have a parliament. The way this government is going, under this type of section in this type of legislation, we have a legitimate right to fear that kind of change taking place in the province.

Mr. Speaker — Mr. Chairman, I should say; there are so many Speakers in a row here that it's hard to tell which one is which. If the government wanted to repeal the Public Service Act, then we should have brought in a statute that dealt with the Public Service Act, that repealed it or sections of it, and allowed us to debate the merit of repealing those sections or of not repealing them. My understanding of the parliamentary system is that you can't bring in a regulation under another act that repeals an act that has been passed by the Legislature. That act must be repealed in open debate in this chamber.

What the government is attempting to do, contrary to any principle of parliamentary democracy that I understand, is to bring in regulations which repeal or alter a statute that has been passed in this chamber according to the rights and privileges that this chamber has enjoyed for hundreds of years. This section is absolutely contrary to that principle of parliamentary democracy, and certainly the opposition cannot tolerate it. It makes the role of this body meaningless. As the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) have stated, if this body has no meaning, if cabinet can change legislation that was passed in this body, what's the point of our being here in the first place? What's the point of going through the routine of electing members to this Legislature when, under this section, we give the cabinet the power to change, in secret, an act that was passed in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia? We have the responsibility to oppose this section, the responsibility to change it if we can, in order not simply to protect the legislation and the people who will be affected by this legislation, but to protect the principle that this body is the body competent and assigned to pass legislation, not cabinet behind its closed doors in secret.

We cannot stand idly by and let this section pass, because it violates every principle of parliamentary democracy that we understand and that we fought for in this country. It was a long time ago — back in 1849, or prior to 1849 — when responsible government was first achieved in this country. That principle says this body is responsible for legislation, and the executive council must come to this body to receive its instruction and its legislative mandate. What we're doing now is saying that cabinet in secret, without any relation whatsoever to this body, can change legislation or....

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, maybe the member is making his point under the wrong

[ Page 2723 ]

section and is getting heated up unnecessarily. He's suggesting that where there is a conflict between the Public Service Act and this act or a regulation made under this act, this act or the regulation will prevail, and attempting to make an argument that regulations can destroy the intent of legislation, which is a false premise. I think the member should really look at section 7.2, which addresses the question of regulations and talks about what kind of regulations can be put in place. Section 7.2 says: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations that he considers necessary or advisable for purposes of carrying out the intent of this act." So it is a very confining description there as to what can be contained in regulations. It really says the regulations that are put in place must address and conform to the legislation. It says that legislation can't deviate from the intent of the legislation; it's not a question....

The argument you're putting forward is that the cabinet can, by regulation, essentially override legislation, and that's a false premise if you read 7.2. You're making an argument on an entirely false premise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister appears to be entering debate, but the point of order is well taken.

MR. SKELLY: In fact, Mr. Chairman, the minister is operating from a misunderstanding. My understanding of what this section says is that where the Public Service Act conflicts with this act or a regulation made under this act, then this act or its regulation prevails; and yet we've seen instance after instance where this act conflicts with the Public Service Act. Hence, if a regulation was made under this act by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that conflicted in its principle with the Public Service Act, and that regulation superseded the Public Service Act, what we have in fact is a change in the Public Service Act made in cabinet or a change in the effect of the Public Service Act, or possibly a repeal of a section of the act. In fact, this section does attempt to repeal another act by permitting it to be repealed, altered, changed or whatever under this act. We feel that this conflicts with the democratic principles that we operate under, and therefore I would move that section 7 be amended by striking out the words "this act or the regulations prevails," and substituting therefore the words: "the Public Service Act prevails."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the amendment would fail as it completely negates section 7. The amendment is out of order.

MR. SKELLY: I challenge your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 6

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

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

On section 7.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to discuss this section and the regulations. I mentioned a little earlier that under section 7.2 "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations that he considers necessary or advisable for purposes of carrying out the intent of this act." I think that's fairly restrictive and straightforward. I would suggest that that definition is substantially more restrictive and more straightforward than the regulations put in by the NDP under the Agricultural Land Commission Act, which blankly says: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations."

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to this section.

[1:00]

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll give you a relevant one then, Mr. Chairman. This section says that where there is a conflict between the Public Service Act and this act or a regulation made under this act, this act or the regulation prevails. In other words, that's fairly restrictive. That talks about where there is a conflict. However, the Agricultural Land Commission Act, in talking about the question of regulations, says: "This act and regulations are not subject to any other enactment, whenever enacted, except the Interpretation Act, the Environment and Land Use Act, the Waste Management Act and as provided in this act or regulations." Not subject to any other enactment, whenever enacted. And they have the gall to spout off that sanctimonious claptrap here this afternoon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are....

HON. MR. CHABOT: We're attempting to define when there is a conflict as to what might take place. When they were government they enacted those kinds of regulations, and they stand up here and sound sanctimonious. What kind of rubbish do we have to put up with from that gang of socialists over there? Absolute nonsense, foolishness like I've never heard before! What a bunch of hypocrites.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll call the minister to order.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, there has been grave disorder in the House. The Provincial Secretary has thrown a book out toward the Chair....

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: It was done perhaps behind the Chair because of the position in which the minister sits. Certainly it's important that order be restored. When that member goes

[ Page 2724 ]

into full flight and his voice goes up about 16 octaves, Mr. Chairman, I advise you to look at and watch that member, because there might be something flying at your head before you know it. For your own safety.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment. Order, please. We can deal with this like ladies and gentlemen, I'm sure — like gentlemen and honourable members. We are on a section now that is quite specific, and the minister was replying to it. Please continue.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker 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.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:04 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

3    The Hon. J. R. Chabot to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 3) intituled Public Sector Restraint Act to amend as follows:
                   SECTION 1, by adding the following definition:
                        " 'terminate' includes lay off."
                   SECTION 2 (1), is deleted and the following substituted:

"(1) Notwithstanding the Labour Code and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, where a public sector employer

        (a) considers that there

            (i) is insufficient work, or

            (ii) are insufficient current operating funds budgeted,

    to maintain current levels of employment,

        (b) makes a change in the organizational structure of the employer,

        (c) discontinues a program, activity or service of the employer, or

        (d) reduces the level of an activity or service of the employer,

the public sector employer may terminate the employment of an employee in accordance with the regulations."

    SECTION 2 (2), by adding "Subject to subsection (2.1)" — at the beginning.

    SECTION 2, by adding the following subsection:

        "(2.1) Notwithstanding any provision of a collective agreement, a notice of termination may be given under subsection (1) before the termination or expiry of the collective agreement if the termination is to take effect on or after the date of termination or expiry of the agreement.

    SECTION 2 (3), is deleted and the following substituted:

        "(3) Subject to subsection (2), subsection (1) and a regulation made under section 3 or 4 apply notwithstanding any provision of a collective agreement, and, where there is an inconsistency between

        (a) the power of termination under subsection (1) or a regulation made under section 3 or 4, and

        (b) any provision of a collective agreement,

    subsection (1) or the regulation, as the case may be, prevails.

    SECTION 2 (4), by deleting "subsection (2)," and substituting "subsections (2) and (2.1),".

[ Page 2725 ]

    SECTION 2 (6), by deleting "school board." and substituting "board of school trustees."

    SECTION 2 (7), by deleting subsection (7) and substituting the following:

        "(7) Where a board of school trustees terminates the employment of a teacher under subsection (1), the effective date of the termination shall be the end of the current school term, as determined under the School Act."

    SECTIONS 2.1 and 2.2, by adding the following sections:

"Exemption order

        "2.1 (1) Where a written contract of employment or a collective agreement contains provisions that

        (a) enable a public sector employer to terminate the employment of employees in the circumstances described in section 2 (1),

        (b) provide fair and equitable procedures, which are consistent with efficient management, by which those terminations of employment will be implemented, and

        (c) provide fair and equitable compensation to be paid to those employees whose employment has been terminated, the Compensation Stabilization Commissioner appointed under the Compensation Stabilization Act may, on the application of a party to that contract or agreement, order that section 2 (1), (3) and (5) does not apply to the parties to that contract or agreement.

    "(2) The Compensation Stabilization Commissioner may

    (a) impose any conditions he considers necessary in respect of an order made under subsection (1), and

    (b) reconsider and revoke, amend or vary an order he has made.

"No pre-existing right

to terminate affected

        "2.2 (1) Nothing in this Act impairs, alters or affects a right that a public sector employer has to terminate the employment of an employee pursuant to the provisions of a collective agreement or at common law.

    "(2) Where a public sector employer exercises a right referred to in subsection (1), this Act does not apply to that termination."

    SECTION 4 (1), by deleting "or under any other circumstance without cause".

    SECTION 4 (4), by deleting "or under any other circumstance without cause".

    SECTIONS 4.1 and 4.2, by adding the following sections:

"Review panel

        "4.1(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall appoint members to the review panel.

        "(2) A member

        (a) may be appointed for a term and on the conditions specified by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and

        (b) shall be reimbursed by the minister for any reasonable expenses necessarily incurred by him in the performance of his duties.

        "(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall appoint one of the members as chairman.

        "(4) The chairman shall refer a review permitted under this Act or the regulations to one or more members of the review panel, and, in those matters referred, the member or members have the powers of the review panel.

        "(5) The chairman may, before the commencement of the hearing,

        (a) withdraw a review that he referred to a member under subsection (4), and

        (b) replace a member of a review panel.

[ Page 2726 ]

        "(6) Money required to be paid to members of the review panel under this section and to hold hearings by the review panel may, until March 31, 1984, be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.

"Right to request review

        "4.2 (1) An employee whose employment has been terminated under section 2 (1) may request a review of the termination by the review panel solely on the ground that the public sector employer terminated the employment for a reason other than that specified in section 2 (1).

        "(2) A review may be requested by giving written notice of the particulars of the request to the chairman of the review panel and the public sector employer not later than 15 days after the effective date of the employee's termination.

        "(3) The review panel shall render a decision within 2 days after the hearing of the matter and is not required to provide written reasons beyond that which it considers necessary to render its decision.

        "(4) On a review under this section, the review panel may, order that the employee be reinstated with compensation.

        "(5) Notwithstanding section 4 (6), where an employee requests a review by the review panel, the operation of section 4 (6) is suspended until the review panel has rendered its decision in the matter.

    SECTION 5, is deleted.

    SECTION 5.1, by adding the following section:

"Judicial review

    "5.1 (1) On an application for judicial review from a decision of the review panel under section 4.2, a court may, in addition to any other powers it has, order that the employee be reinstated with compensation.

    "(2) No application for judicial review from a decision of the review panel under section 4.2 shall be brought later than 60 days after the date the review panel has rendered its decision.

    "(3) Notwithstanding section 4 (6), where an employee makes an application for judicial review before the 60 day period in section 4 (6) has expired, the operation of section 4 (6) is suspended until the court has rendered its decision in the matter."

                SECTION 6 (1),

(a) by adding the following definition:

" 'contract of employment for a fixed term' means a contract by which an employee agrees to provide his services during a term that, if not renewed or extended, is to end on a date that is ascertainable at the time the contract is entered into;", and

(b) in the definition of "senior manager" by deleting "and" at the end of paragraph (a) and substituting "or".

SECTION 6 (3) (c), by deleting "and records" and by deleting everything following "employed by them,".

SECTION 6 (4), is deleted and the following substituted:

    "(4) Except as expressly provided by this section, no provision of any contract of employment prevents the application of this section to that contract of employment.

    "(4. 1) Where there is a conflict or inconsistency between

                (a) a regulation or direction under this section, and

                (b) any other enactment, or contract of employment, the regulation or direction prevails.

    "(4.2) Where there is a conflict or inconsistency between a direction and a regulation under this section, the regulation prevails.

SECTION 6 (5) (a), by deleting "or period".

[ Page 2727 ]

SECTION 6, by adding the following subsections:

"(5.1) A contract that is, after July 7, 1983, renewed or extended is not, after the renewal or extension, a contract within the meaning of subsection (5) (a).

"(5.2) Where a contract for a fixed term contains an option to terminate the contract before the expiry of the fixed term, and the option may be exercised on or after July 7, 1983, the contract ceases to be a contract within the meaning of subsection (5) (a) on the later of

(a) July 7, 1983, or

(b) the date the option becomes exercisable.

"(5.3) A person is not entitled to damages by reason of his compensation being limited, reduced or affected under this section."

SECTIONS 7.1 and 7.2, by adding the following sections:

    "Validation

"7.1 Where, on or after July 7, 1983 but before this Act comes into force, a public sector employer gave an employee a notice of termination that would have been validly given if given under this Act, the notice of termination shall be conclusively deemed to have been validly given under this Act as though this Act were in force at the time the notice was given.

      "Regulations

"7.2 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations that he considers necessary or advisable for purposes of carrying out the intent of this Act. "