[ Page 2729 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Review of budget proposals. Mr. Stupich –– 2729

Minister's receipt of cougar skin. Mr. Cocke –– 2729

Colony Farm. Ms. Sanford –– 2730

Funding of universities. Mr. Nicolson –– 2730

Cassiar Packing payments to fishermen. Mr. D'Arcy –– 2730

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

On section 7 –– 2731

Mr. D'Arcy

Division

On the amendment to section 7 –– 2732

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Gabelmann

Division

On the amendment to section 7.2 –– 2734

Mr. Macdonald

Division

On section 9 –– 2735

Mr. Passarell

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Mr. Mitchell

Division

On the title –– 2737

Division

Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 11). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On Section 1 –– 2737

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Hanson

Ms. Sanford

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Reynolds

Division

On section 2 –– 2747

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Lauk

Appendix –– 2750

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1983

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I believe that every afternoon we are privileged to have members of the clergy come to give prayers in our House, and today we are again privileged to have someone visiting the Legislature who will be meeting with some of our members later in the day. I would ask the House to give a very special welcome to Mrs. Kathy Kehler, who is Canadian director of the Campus Crusade for Christ of Canada.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce Sean Boulger, who is a student this year at Malaspina College and a constituent from the Parksville area. I would like the House to make him welcome.

Oral Questions

REVIEW OF BUDGET PROPOSALS

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday I raised some questions about unemployment. A new study of unemployment during the recession, prepared by Midland Doherty Ltd., shows that the B.C. economy lost 99,000 jobs during the economic downturn but has gained only 20,000 back during the upturn. The net loss of 79,000 is the worst in the country. Has the minister now decided to reconsider his budget proposals?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. Inasmuch as we discussed this yesterday, nothing has occurred in the interval which would suggest that a change in the policy of the government should be considered at this point. I stand by the answer that I gave yesterday.

I also have some difficulty in answering the question fully without reflecting on votes such as the Employment Development Act, which was dealt with by this House very recently, and referring to other initiatives which have been taken and to which I referred yesterday — that is, the number of jobs which were created largely in the private sector in the first six to eight months of the 1983 calendar year.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm not suggesting that we change any of the existing programs, but I'm wondering whether the minister has considered additional ones, in light of the fact that the situation is even worse than what I told him about yesterday. The Midland Doherty study shows that the net job loss in B.C. is 32 percent greater than that of the next-highest net job loser, the province of Ontario. Does the minister have any explanation as to why B.C.'s performance over the last two years has been that much worse than any other province in Canada, other than that we're the only one with a Social Credit administration?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order, hon. member.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, he was doing quite well until the last few moments, which suggest that the question is somewhat argumentative.

My colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) adequately demonstrated yesterday that there are a variety of forecasts, reports and reviews which must be considered when one is discussing the economy of a province, a region or a nation. In his two questions today, the member has referred to one specific document. I don't refute it out of hand; nonetheless, again my colleague reported on a number of reviews and studies which have been undertaken by prestigious organizations in this country indicating that, indeed, British Columbia is on the road to recovery.

MR. STUPICH: Well, as I recall, yesterday the minister referred to one particular document: the Royal Bank Trendicator.

We're still faced with the fact that in the province of British Columbia, we have the highest net job loss in the whole country and the highest rate of personal and business bankruptcies. It would seem to me that the minister should have given some consideration to this and should at this point be able to tell us about some plans to alleviate the situation in B.C.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will attempt to keep it brief and to the point; I think there was a question there, Mr. Speaker. We are now approaching mid-October. As members of this House will know, the budget which has been debated and legislation flowing from the budget still before us were developed in the environment of the most serious recession in 50 years. That framework was appropriate as we moved toward the development of the budget. I suggest through you, Mr. Speaker. to the member and to other hon. members that it is still appropriate just a few months later. To reiterate, nothing has come to me, nothing has been put in front of me, no discussions have been held which suggest that the budget, which was very carefully prepared for July 7 of this year, should be restructured or that there should be a second budget in the course of this fiscal year. Indeed, we are moving close, relatively speaking, to the next budget for the fiscal year 1984-85.

[2:15]

MINISTER'S RECEIPT OF COUGAR SKIN

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Will the minister confirm that he flew to Penticton on Friday, September 30, to receive a trophy: the skin of a cougar?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Not quite. I was in Kimberley and on my way to Vancouver. I stopped at the request of my former staff of the Ministry of Environment, who had invited me to come. They presented me with, yes, the skin of a cougar, which is in my office in Vancouver.

MR. COCKE: Will the minister confirm that the cost to the public of landing a jet and moving around in a jet is considerable in a time of restraint?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes, I would to this extent, but we were doing the flight anyway. As a matter of fact we were flying over Penticton, and I was able to offer the courtesy of a

[ Page 2730 ]

ride to Dr. McTaggart-Cowan, who also came on that plane. I presume that is the next question you are going to ask....

AN HON. MEMBER: We didn't know about that.

HON. MR. ROGERS: He was stuck in Penticton and he had an appointment in Victoria. I offered him a ride as a guest of the government, and he did return with me. I think his service to the province is worthwhile. I don't know what it costs to bring a Citation from about 18,000 feet down to land. There are no landing fees in Penticton. We're probably looking at about 300 pounds of fuel. At 7.6 pounds to the gallon, you can figure it out; it's not that expensive.

COLONY FARM

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary, now that he has returned. Will the minister advise the House whether officials of the B.C. Buildings Corporation are making preparations for the sale of the land known as Colony Farm, in the municipality of Coquitlam?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question as notice and get the information to bring back to the member at the very earliest opportunity.

MS. SANFORD: I'm wondering whether or not the minister has held any discussions with officials within the B.C. Buildings Corporation, or officials within his own ministry, regarding the criteria for establishing a purchase price for Colony Farm.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no.

FUNDING OF UNIVERSITIES

MR. NICOLSON: A question to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, Mr. Speaker. The province's universities have celebrated Universities Week by declaring that a state of siege exists between the Social Credit government and the university community. Has the minister decided to sue for peace with the university community, in recognition of the importance that the universities assume in this age where we are striving toward economic recovery?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I think that the question of the member must have been some figment of his imagination. The universities in British Columbia are among the most generously treated in the world. The great security and freedom of our universities depends upon that generous and consistent financial support. May I say that with the economy bouncing back in British Columbia as a result of the policies of the Social Credit government, the universities will be even better off in the future than they are today. This is a recorded message from the minister of industrial development.

MR. NICOLSON: A new question to the same minister. B.C. ranks ninth out of ten — that is, at the bottom — in terms of government grants to universities. Has the minister decided to draw this information to the attention of the government in hopes that the government will realize the importance of our universities to recovery and to a technological society?

HON. MR. McGEER: Over the years, since this government has been in power, our universities in British Columbia have enjoyed the most favourable treatment in the nation. Canada as a country has put more of its public resources behind universities than any country in the world, so that our universities have been fortunate indeed in the degree of public support that they've had over the years. As our economy recovers over the long haul, our universities will maintain that preeminence, but everyone needs to understand — especially the members opposite — that we cannot borrow our way into prosperity, and the universities, like everyone else during a time of fiscal restraint, will need to manage and marshal the dollars that the taxpayers can afford to spend until the economic storm in the world has passed.

CASSIAR PACKING
PAYMENTS TO FISHERMEN

MR. D'ARCY: A question to my friend the member for North Peace River. We're back on Cassiar Packing, and in his capacity as minister responsible for fisheries we've discussed this before in question period. The minister is very well aware that this company is in receivership with Coopers and Lybrand, courtesy of the Royal Bank of Canada, and that the receiver has made a commitment to pay fishermen who delivered before the bankruptcy 20 cents on the dollar, only if they continued to deliver after the takeover. The question to the minister is: has he made representations to the receiver, Coopers and Lybrand, that all fishermen should be paid in full by the company for fish delivered prior to the takeover?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The short answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D'ARCY: Some crewmen have been forced by their vessel owners to deliver their fish to other buyers because of the failure of and receivership of Cassiar Packing, and these crewmen will not even be paid, then, 20 cents on the dollar for fish delivered in good faith prior to the receivership. Has the minister decided to take any action regarding those who will receive zero under the present policy of Coopers and Lybrand and the Royal Bank?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think I had reported earlier to the House, when this question was raised, that the receiver had guaranteed 20 cents on the dollar, only on the condition that they continued to deliver there. We are investigating it at this time.

MR. D'ARCY: If the minister becomes satisfied that the people involved here, who delivered fish according to a contract which they had signed in good faith, are not going to receive 20 cents on the dollar — those who are not continuing deliveries due to their employer's decision are getting zero cents on the dollar — will the minister consider making any legislative changes to protect fishermen who deliver fish in good faith in future situations?

[ Page 2731 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I haven't considered legislation at this time. One of the difficulties, of course, is stepping in and getting involved in financial arrangements that are made between lenders and borrowers.

MR. D'ARCY: Similar situations occurred recently on the east coast in Newfoundland, and a joint agreement in operation between the federal and provincial governments has resulted in substantial compensation being paid to fishermen involved in situations like this. Has the minister made any representation to his federal counterparts to see if similar arrangements could possibly be made for fishermen who find themselves in the same situation in British Columbia? After all, if a policy is good enough for Newfoundland and the federal government, surely we can take advantage of it in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Within the next ten years.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It seems we are not quite as fortunate here on the west coast as they are on the east coast in being treated equally by the federal government.

AN HON. MEMBER: We need an aggressive minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: When we continue our investigations into the actual facts of the situation, then we will consider approaching Ottawa.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We have visiting in the galleries today from London, England, Dr. Paul Campbell. I would like all members to bid him a special welcome.

Mr. Speaker, leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

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

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT
(continued)

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

On section 7.

MR. D'ARCY: Looking at section 7 before adjournment, there was considerable debate, some of it histrionic. In an attempt to clarify what this should mean in the opposition's view, and hopefully in the government's view as well, I would like to move an amendment that would delete from the second line the words "this act" and insert "the terms of a collective agreement." I so move. The section would then read: "Where there is a conflict between the Public Service Act and this act or a regulation made under this act, the terms of a collective agreement would prevail."

HON. MR. CHABOT: Needless to say, Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment to section 7 is one that negates intent of the section and is another stalling tactic on the part of the NDP to frustrate the ability of the government to govern.

[2:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair must concur with the opinion of the minister. The amendment is out of order in that it does negative the section.

MR. D'ARCY: Commenting briefly on the minister's remarks, I object strenuously to being accused of making a frivolous stalling tactic. The fact is that we're attempting to humanize this section and make it reasonable. I appreciate the Chairman's ruling. I appreciate the right of the Chair to make a ruling. Unfortunately I'm going to have to challenge that ruling on this particular proposed amendment.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

YEAS –– 28

NAYS — 8

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

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

Section 7 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

[ Page 2732 ]

NAYS — 9

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, sections 7.1 and 7.2, standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. D'ARCY: I am not going to belabour this section, but clearly this gives the government the right to fire retroactively. The minister likes to talk about years past. When he was in opposition he used to rant and rave and go on tirades about retroactive legislation. I would like to remind the minister that in a great many democratically elected jurisdictions in the western world there is no such thing. It is unconstitutional to make anything retroactive. The fact is that until a bill is passed and signed by the governor or president or whatever, and everybody has agreed to it — the majority has agreed to it — there is no way that any section of that bill can be applied. We know that the government majority is going to force this section through. They are going to alter a great many people's lives by what is clearly, by any definition, an assault on human rights, on the traditions of common law, and on the normal rule of law and order that we have known in this province and in other jurisdictions in Canada. It's part of the general tenor of the bill and is something that the government should hang its head in shame for.

[2:45]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I have to refute some of the outrageous statements made by the member for Rossland-Trail. He talks about retroactive firings and so forth. The section is merely a very simple validation section which addresses the question of notices of terminations that have been issued. It validates them. It does not address the question of termination, because termination will not take place until the expiry of the collective agreement. This government believes in the sanctity of collective agreements; therefore, terminations will not take place until such time as the expiry of the collective agreement.

We're saying here that we're validating this notice of termination that has been issued. We believed it was important to notify the public servants in British Columbia that they were going to be terminated in order to give them as much notice as possible so that they could make other arrangements or could seek out other employment opportunities. There is no fairer employer than the province of British Columbia. Where it is customary to give between 72 hours' notice and 7 days' notice, we, the provincial government, have given up to four months' notice. I don't know what can be fairer than that.

MR. D'ARCY: After listening to the minister's gobbledegook, I am going to read him his own section that he wrote, or had written for him. At least, he has submitted this amendment to the chamber, as printed in the Orders of the Day, October 12, 1983. For the minister's benefit, and the benefit of his backers and apologists on that side of the House, section 7.1, submitted by the minister, says: "Where, on or after July 7, 1983, but before this act comes into force" — it is now October 12, three months later — "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." Mr. Chairman, that's retroactivity back to July 7. There is no way the minister can get up and sanctimoniously talk about slicing the cake any different way. That's what it means. If he says it doesn't mean that, then he should submit an amendment to change it.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, this section exemplifies the injustice in this bill. Not only are public sector employees fired without due process in violation of common law and all labour standards laid down for hundreds and hundreds of years, but this government wants to be super-boss, super-employer. They've given these employees a time-release capsule that will kill them in terms of their livelihood in a few weeks or a few months, whenever this bill is proclaimed. The injustice of the process is that not only are they fired unjustly, but they're fired retroactively, as my friend from Rossland-Trail has pointed out.

Mr. Chairman, that minister should hang his head in shame. He is going to go down in history as the ultimate deliverer of draconian labour legislation in this province. It's a shameful day because that member, even though he is Social Credit, was at one time a Labour minister in this province. He should have some sense of the working people, whether they work in the private sector or the public sector. But he has absolute contempt for his own employees. To treat them savagely in this way is an absolutely contemptuous act.

We want to register our opposition to this incredible legislation. It's a black day for British Columbia.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I would like the member to withdraw the statement that I have contempt for the employees of the public service of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member finds the remark offensive. I'll ask the member if he will withdraw, please.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, that is not an unparliamentary statement; it's a matter of fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member, that will not suffice. I ask the member to offer an unqualified withdrawal, which is the tradition and courtesy in our parliament when a member asks another hon. member for a withdrawal. Please withdraw.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I will clarify that. The government has contempt for its own employees.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But the remark attributed to the minister is withdrawn?

MR. HANSON: Withdrawn and replaced with: "The government has contempt for its own employees."

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, it's only October 12. The minister hasn't realized that there are still 11 weeks

[ Page 2733 ]

to go before 1984. His sanctimonious comment that the government is concerned about the sanctity of the contract is the most outrageous and absurd statement among the many outrageous and absurd statements made by that minister since we began the debate on this in committee at 4:30 yesterday afternoon.

Obviously, by making this section retroactive, by having the ability to serve notice of termination while the contract was in force, which this section allows, the government is demonstrating clearly and in unequivocal terms that it has no respect whatsoever for the sanctity of a contract. For the minister to give us that Orwellian claptrap is a little bit much to take. If he would just level with the House and own up to what he is doing — "We don't believe that the collective agreement we signed in good faith is a good collective agreement; we want to use the weight of this Legislature to make it null and void, and we want to do it retroactively" — then fair enough. Say what it means, but don't say what it doesn't mean. What the minister is saying was something very different from what this section and this bill actually say. When the minister says he and his government believe in the sanctity of the collective agreement, the government collectively is not telling the truth.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just be careful here.

MR. GABELMANN: I was being very careful.

There are times when retroactive legislation is appropriate. The obvious ones deal with tax amendments and financial legislation of that kind, where some gain could be made if there's prior knowledge of a bill coming into force. There is no place here for this kind of retroactive legislation. There was in the land bill, because profits could have been made if that legislation had not been made retroactive. It was absolutely necessary, the same as it would be for a tax measure. In this legislation, we're saying that if the government had started the debate on this legislation on July 7 or 8 and proceeded in the normal course of events, and had it passed within a week or two and then given their notice, they could have done it legally; even though it would have been immoral, at least it would have been legal. But what they've done is to commit an illegal act and then ask us, as legislators, to approve retroactively an illegal act. I object to that. It's wrong in law; it's wrong by every possible approach that one might take. There are times for retroactivity; this is not one of those times.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the opposition has rarely told the truth on various sections of this legislation, and this is another instance....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I cautioned the opposition on that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes. You cautioned me too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will caution all hon. members. That term itself isn't a finite term that requires withdrawal, but please, we are in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Moderation and courtesy are always a hallmark of parliamentary debate.

MR. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If the minister is making the allegation that the opposition has not been putting forward truthful statements in this House, I would ask him to withdraw.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. please. As I've just explained to all members of the committee, when something is said collectively about a class or group of people. the Chair finds it hard; but I am censuring that type of language. I would ask all members to try to avoid that from now on. That applies to both the member and the minister, and also the member for North Island. I think we're aware of that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, it was in that context that I was saying the opposition collectively rarely tells the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's avoid that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for North Islands attests that this validation section of the act really retroactively terminates or fires people in the public service. What it does is validate notices of termination that have been issued to public servants in British Columbia. What I'm saying is that those public servants who have been issued notices of termination prior to the validation section coming into place will not be terminated until the expiry of the collective agreement.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I am going to try to restrain myself so that I can keep in order, but I find it a little difficult when the minister responds to comments that he alleges I made, which I didn't make. Let's have a debate about the issues, but let's not misconstrue what's been said by another member. There may well be some room here for legitimate differences in opinion on the facts, but not for making up new facts.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Do you agree with the point I'm making?

MR. GABELMANN: I agree. My concern about this section is that it is retroactive. Agreed, it doesn't retroactively fire people.

MR. REYNOLDS: You said that before.

MR. GABELMANN: I said it before, but the minister didn't understand me.

MR. MICHAEL: Tell us about severance pay.

MR. GABELMANN: I would tell you about severance pay, but it’s not in section 7.1.

The issue involved, Mr. Chairman — and I made the point before but the minister didn't hear me, or chose not to — is that we are being asked to make legal notices of termination of the employment retroactively that were given in the month of July....

MR. MICHAEL: With severance pay.

MR. GABELMANN: Severance pay isn’t in this section, Mr. Chairman. The legislation was not in place on July 7 or those days subsequent when employees of the Crown were

[ Page 2734 ]

being given termination notices, effective October 31. Those notices were given on the basis of the possibility that this Legislature might, at some future date, approve legislation allowing those termination notices to be given in violation of the collective agreements. Those notices were given without any legal authority whatsoever. Now the government, three months later, is asking us to approve the issuance of those notices. That is retroactivity. It is wrong in principle, unless there is some financial gain to be made by knowledge of legislation in advance of its passage. That is not the case here. There is no call for retroactive legislation. Give the people their termination notices once the Lieutenant-Governor has approved the bill and not before. That is the point we are trying to make.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the admendment described as 7.1 be approved?

[3:00]

Amendment 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. REE: On a point of order, I didn't notice how the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) voted.

Interjections.

MR. REE: He didn't rise in his seat at the time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver East was noted as voting in the negative.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order. Did I hear the name of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) called?

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I didn't hear his name called.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, he's not recorded as having voted.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I'm sure I saw him record his vote.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: You mean he didn't vote?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It will be amended accordingly. Could the minister take his place and indicate how he voted. There appears to be some discrepancy.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm very pleased to advise the House and everybody in the gallery that I voted positively for the section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the affirmative. No reference to the galleries, please.

Debate on amendment 7.2 will now proceed.

On the amendment.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the amendment we have here 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." Mr. Chairman, that's an extremely broad power to make regulations. Who's going to decide what the intent of the act is? What is the intent of this act? What you're doing here in this section, Mr. Chairman, is giving the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in addition to the powers that are in this act, carte blanche to have a field day at the expense of the public sector employees. I've never seen such a broad regulation-making power as this. There is no section in the act defining what its intent is.

I ask the minister this simple little question: what kinds of regulations do you contemplate will be made under section 7.2? What are you speaking about there?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I think if the member was observant throughout the night, he would probably have come to the conclusion that the most important regulations that will be put in place are the regulations I've issued in draft form at this time. Those regulations address the question of compensation for employees who are terminated under the provisions of the legislation. I've elaborated extensively on those provisions, talking about the most generous severance compensation package anywhere in British Columbia for organized workers. It has recall rights and recognition of seniority; it addresses the question of early retirement and the question of retraining and recall. Those are the major provisions under which regulations would be contemplated.

MR. MACDONALD: The regulations that the minister referred to are those made under earlier sections of the bill. In addition, you give yourself wide, sweeping power to make any regulations which in the government's opinion carry out the intent of the bill. Why do you need this subsection? You already have the regulation-making power.

HON. MR. CHABOT: This one would address the general administration of the act in the event there was a need for such regulation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member chuckles away, Mr. Chairman. I want you to remember that in one year when they

[ Page 2735 ]

were government 100 pieces of legislation came in, and every piece of legislation made reference to regulations. Regulations were attached to all of that legislation brought in by those socialists. And he sits there and chuckles when I tell him why there's a need for regulations under this legislation. I'm shocked and appalled by the behaviour of that man, who used to be the Attorney-General of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All members' behaviour is honourable, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister is in the wrong calling; he should have been on the stage. I was on the stage once; I fell out of a balcony.

Of course every bill has regulation-making powers. There are regulations that the Legislature authorizes with respect to, say, the compensation package or the terms and conditions relating to seniority — that's pretty broad. But you don't finish off a piece of legislation — we never have in this Legislature — with a broad, sweeping section that says you can make regulations about anything in addition to everything else we've passed. That's what you're saying in section 7.2: whatever is necessary or desirable to carry out the intent of the act. Who decides what the intent of the act is? The minister and the cabinet. You can do amost anything under these regulations. That is czardom. Are you going to answer that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll answer that. I'm sure that the member, if he isn't too tired from wandering around and smoking his cigar last night, will understand the regulations that can be addressed under section 7.2. It says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-CounciI may make regulations that he considers necessary or advisable for the purposes of carrying out the intent of this act. So the parameters are fairly narrow. It's very confined as to what the regulation can state. Earlier this morning I gave an example of the kind of regulations brought in under legislation by the NDP. They were broad, sweeping regulations and did not have the confinement that these particular regulations have, which address strictly the intent of the act. The section dealing with the regulations that you brought in merely said that you had the authority to issue regulations. I believe in the regulations being confined to the intent and purposes which we've defined here.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in B.C. we've never had a minister with more willingness to embark on a flight of fancy. If you want to debate in this House some other piece of legislation with a regulation-making power, do so, but don't just give us all that guff that there are other bills with greater regulation-making power. We'll go into some other bills, one by one. I'm talking about this bill. I'm saying that you're taking carte blanche powers under this section to make regulations to carry out the intent of the act; whatever you decide is the intent of the act — and it could be one thing on Monday and another thing on Wednesday and another thing on Friday — you can make a regulation about it. When you are affecting people's liberties in their employment, why don't you bring in a narrowly confined section relating to regulations?

[3:15]

You're dealing with human liberties here. You're dealing with jobs, with individuals — the public service of British

Columbia. You are finishing off this sweeping act with even more sweeping powers to make regulations about whatever you may think is the intent of the act. They are wide, sweeping powers that give the government carte blanche control over the public sector in the province of British Columbia. That's what you embarked on when you had those words "without cause." You wanted to intimidate the whole public sector in the province and hold a gun to them. Now you are putting in that fine flourish at the end of this bill, making regulations just to carry out the intent of the act. What are they going to be? I asked the minsister but he can't tell me. He says "compensation package." That's dealt with somewhere else.

Mr. Chairman, this is a fitting conclusion to this bill: the government is seizing totally unreasonable powers.

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 9

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

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the member for Atlin.

AN HON. MEMBER: The old grizzly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give us the bear facts.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm putting together such a good list of bear facts to bring in, but I know it's out of order on section 9. I wanted to talk today a little bit about a cat that was hung or laid, but I'll have to stay on section 9. We're talking about the repeal of section 153. I want to ask a few questions of the minister. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) may be able to help him with this one. I know the Provincial Secretary has an assistant there who will be able to help him.

Section 153, which is being repealed, says: "...may terminate teachers on 30 days' written notice." One aspect that I would like to see brought in by the minister is that the date itself, particularly around May 30, should be brought in. If this act is repealed — which it will be in the next ten

[ Page 2736 ]

minutes, once the vote comes to it — you're going to put teachers in a very difficult situation. If a school district terminates a teacher on June 30, the teacher would not be allowed — in 99.9 percent of the cases — to apply for a new job, because most school districts would have filled their staff quota for the next year. If you put in a subamendent saying that the 30 days' notice would only happen after May 30, it would allow teachers the opportunity to apply for a job prior to September, because the next opportunity to apply for a job would be in November or December, when there would be new openings coming up in January. This would allow some protection to teachers. It would allow them to formulate some professional opportunities prior to December 31.

My second question to the minister is: what formula — particularly in section 153(2), which is being repealed — will school districts use for termination? Will seniority be involved? Section 153 also gives a bit of protection to teachers, particularly in section 153(2), where it says that school districts can use the five-month formula. It says, in the second sentence up from the end of the section, that it allows a five-month formula for reassignment in the district. What is the minister going to do with teachers, once this act is passed, for reassignment in a district? Now you have a section in the act itself which gives some protection to teachers through reassignment in districts. Once that has been repealed, there will be no reassignment in the district. This is a precious little right that is involved for the staff, and I would like to know what the minister will bring forward to continue this fivemonth formula for reassignment in the district.

You also, by having this section repealed — termination of professional teachers with years of service — could be starting a formula for districts to replace teachers who are on a higher level of salary because of seniority and professional job training with, particularly, new teachers coming out of university, which would save the districts money, but by the same token wouldn't provide the quality of education that our students deserve.

The last question I'd like to address to the minister is particularly in section 153(2) — that by repealing this you're affecting, to a certain extent, rural school districts. I know the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), in consultation right now with the minister, will probably be able to offer an answer to this question. Why, with the decrease in enrolment, particularly in rural school districts where now there is a certain aspect of the act that protects when decreased enrolment happens in a school district, use that as a centralization aspect? The point that I'm making is that in a rural district, particularly in my riding.... We had the resource community of Kitsault close down, and a number of teachers were terminated. Under this....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, Mr. Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), you certainly didn't come and protect those people of Kitsault once it was closed down. You washed your hands entirely of those 400 people who were there and offered them no protection whatsoever for jobs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister will come to order, and the member will speak to the section.

MR. PASSARELL: So on this aspect, what I'm wondering is whether a district with decreased enrolment can go to another school and start terminating teachers, even though one resource community was closed down by a cost-saving measure?

Those are five questions I direct to the minister, and I'd hope to receive some type of an answer.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Under the provisions of Bill 3, section 9, there really will be more consideration given to teachers who are subject to termination because of budgetary requirements and so forth. The provisions of section 153 essentially give 30 days' notice under certain conditions. Here, because of the budgetary constraint that exists in school districts, they will be aware of the employment situation in various school districts and will have the ability and flexibility to give more notification than has historically been given under section 153 of the School Act. So essentially it's an additional benefit — or not necessarily a benefit but an additional notice that will flow to the teachers who might be impacted by this section.

[3:30]

MR. PASSARELL: I'm pleased with the minister's response; you addressed the first question I gave to you. Just one further question about the 30 days' notice. Is it the government's belief that by repealing this you're going to give 30 days' notice any time through the year? Would it be in August or July when school's not sitting? The point that I made was that many teachers, if they're terminated, let's say, on May 30, have the month of June to apply for the new school session. Does the 30 days' notice you were talking about cover 12 months or is it just covering until May 30 or until December 31 ?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll let the Minister of Education respond to that one.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Really, upon examination of the provisions of Bill 3 and that of section 153 of the School Act, you will find very little difference. There's just one additional thing which Bill 3 gives, which not too many seem to have taken notice of. Under the School Act, the school year, by definition, is divided into two terms, as you're probably aware: fall and spring. What this section says is the "then current term." That answers it.

To close it off, I think it's important to note that there are regulations under Bill 3 where there are none under the School Act. The interesting thing about it is this: under the regulations of Bill 3, the drafts of which have just been circulated, we find that appropriate notice must be not only given, but if there is a severance package attached to it....

There is no severance package at all within the School Act, so schoolteachers are in effect receiving an additional benefit under this section and are being treated on the same basis, as a matter of fact, as other public sector employers. Really, it's a bit of a gain.

MR. MITCHELL: Just one thing keeps bothering me. We've brought it up and brought it up, and the government still refers to it.... This concerns the severance package, which is part of the regulations. This severance package is like the sugar coating on a pill. We keep hearing about it, but that can be changed by the stroke of a pen.

[ Page 2737 ]

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: But it can be. The way that the regulations are drafted by the cabinet, the cabinet can change those regulations, so let's not say that the regulations are part of this act. They're not. They're part of the whim of the government of the day.

Section 9 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 10

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

Section 10 approved.

Schedule approved.

Title 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.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to note to the committee before the minister closes debate, just very quickly, that there has been, I think, about 23 hours of continuous debate in committee on Bill 3, and I would like to compliment the Chairmen, who have handled the debate in an exemplary fashion throughout the entire time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that's out of order, but I accept it anyway.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to concur with what the NDP said, but I think we should also congratulate the minister, who sat here for 23½ hours straight answering all the questions.

[3:45]

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 3, Public Sector Restraint Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. GABELMANN: Section 1 of the bill in front of us amends section 2 of the Compensation Stabilization Act. Section 2 of the act is the application section, which indicates that all public sector employers and employees are covered by the act, as is anyone who agreed to be covered under section 32, which is a federal-provincial agreement that might be enacted. So, basically, in terms of the amendment in front of us, the issue that counts is the fact that the act applies to all public sector employers and employees. The amendment suggests an additional section that arbitrators of arbitration awards containing a compensation plan for public sector employees shall also be covered by the compensation stabilization legislation.

A very important principle being enacted by this particular amendment is that arbitrators heretofore in Canadian labour law have been considered to be independent and responsible enough to accept a variety of factors in determining what is, in terms of interest arbitrations, the appropriate settlement of an unresolved dispute between employers and employees. Never before has legislation existed in this province telling arbitrators that their independence is no longer valued or, in fact, in existence.

There are two ways of dealing with this, if the government's intention — which I do not agree with, but let's give them that — is that arbitrated settlements be included in the compensation stabilization program: one is to do this, and the

[ Page 2738 ]

other is to do the proper thing, which is to allow the compensation stabilization commissioner to make any decisions he might make in the same way as he would if the settlement had been negotiated freely. An arbitrated award is simply in its final state the same as a negotiated settlement, except that it was arrived at by a different process. If a negotiated process occurs and the guidelines are exceeded, the compensation stabilization commissioner intervenes and requires that further things happen. When an agreement is reached through arbitration, the package should then be referred to the compensation stabilization commissioner, and he should make whatever determinations he needs to make. The award is determined by an arbitrator based on the evidence presented to him from both sides in the dispute.

The amendment requires of arbitrators not only that they consider the concerns of the employer and employees and the best possible way of reaching an agreement, which is what happens in collective bargaining, but the arbitrator must also look at the Compensation Stabilization Act and write an award consonant with this legislation. You no longer have an independent arbitration process when you do that. What you have are arbitrators working for the legislation — for the Compensation Stabilization Commission and for the executive council — and, in effect, doing their dirty work. That is not what interest arbitration is all about. Interest arbitration is a mechanism that has been designed. There has been a lot of criticism about it over the years, but there appears to be a growing acceptance that in some areas of labour relations it seems to be an increasingly accepted way of resolving contract disputes, whether the arbitration awards are compulsory or not. We are dealing here with binding arbitration awards.

What the government fails to recognize in its desire for some short-term gain in terms of this particular program is that they are damaging the ability of arbitrators in this province to remain neutral, respected and an integral part of the collective bargaining process. Some of us who have on occasion taken fairly extreme positions on the issue of collective bargaining might be pleased to see that — in the sense that maybe binding interest arbitration is a bad thing. I think we have gone beyond that in our society. In fact, we have got to the stage now where there is an acceptance that that is a legitimate mechanism to be used, particularly in some public sector areas where there is a preponderance of essential services being delivered by a particular union or group of employees.

What the government in this section is indicating to arbitrators is that they must give their paramount concern to the ability to pay, and they must do everything in their award in compliance with this legislation. You are making them agents of the government. They are no longer independent interest arbitrators. That, I suggest, from the government's own perspective, is a slippery road. You damage the ability of arbitrators to retain some independence and integrity. I predict that the best of the arbitrators will not accept appointments under this act for a variety of reasons, not just this subsection which I have to speak to. The best ones will not do it, because they will not have their integrity compromised by a requirement of law that they act as an agent for the Crown. Under this legislation that's what the compensation stabilization commissioner was established to do: to act as the agent of the Crown to achieve the goals of the compensation stabilization program.

I know what the response from the minister will be, or I can predict what part of it will be at least. He will say that if a collective agreement has been reached in free collective bargaining that exceeds the guidelines, the commissioner can refer it back to the parties and they have to attempt to come back in a negotiated fashion with a package that does comply. Finally at some stage the compensation commissioner has some ability to impose the regulations of the act and impose a settlement. The argument would be that the same thing doesn't apply in the case of arbitrators, because arbitrators have been refusing to rewrite an arbitration award. They have been arguing that the compensation commissioner has that responsibility, and I would agree.

There is a significant difference between a collective agreement that's reached through collective bargaining and one that's reached through interest arbitration. If it's reached through arbitration, I think we should maintain the principle that that arbitrator is independent and free to make a decision based on the facts presented to him, which include a whole variety of issues that I won't go into now. And if the compensation stabilization commissioner feels that that particular settlement or award is beyond the guidelines, then let the compensation commissioner himself take the responsibility for arbitrating the settlement further. Don't ask independent arbitrators to do that dirty work for the government. I think that is a very important principle, and, as I said before, it's leading the whole process of interest arbitration in this province down a slippery path. The ability of independent arbitrators to act with any respect or to have any integrity is bound to slip away, and the government, more than the opposition, will be the losers for that kind of direction.

[4:00]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, in our society there is a well-established forum for resolution of disputes, and that is an independent third party. Sometimes it takes the form of a single arbitrator mutually agreed upon by two parties; sometimes it's an arbitration board, depending upon the magnitude of the decision. In the case of an arbitration board you have a representative from each side and a mutually agreed-upon chairperson.

This section of this bill overrides that long-established tradition of resolution of disputes.

Mr. Chairman, to have a piece of legislation come before this House that says that two disagreeing parties, whether they are at a library in the Peace River or are a bus driver and their employer in some other area.... There are 250,000 families, in a multitude of vocations. There could be up to 1,500 different occupations covered under this bill. Mr. Chairman, this bill overrides any ability to reach a resolution of a dispute by a process that after a decision is made would have the confidence of both parties. Clearly it was something that they'd come to the point where they could both agree upon. What we have now is a resolutions process which is far removed from the local scene and far removed from any of the detail and understanding of the grassroots grievance that has precipitated the dispute.

Mr. Chairman, there are those who hold in a naive way the notion that if a decision is made from afar on a particular situation, that will resolve it and no more will be heard. It's almost like the medical analogy of a boil. Unless it is dealt with with antiseptic or lanced, it doesn't go away. Grievances become long-standing, and they have a multiplier or an escalating impact. I don't have to draw a picture on the wall for you to understand that our industrial-relations climate is deteriorating every day in this province as a result of an

[ Page 2739 ]

intransigent attitude on the part of government that local decisions cannot be resolved in the public sector by employers and employees working through a disputes procedure that has been mutually agreed upon and is tried and true, and proven over time.

This clause overrides any arbitrator's jurisdiction and freedom. The arbitrator must make an award within the guidelines and regulations of this act. There can be many, many extenuating circumstances, many pent-up and historic reasons why a dispute exists. Sometimes it is comparability with people who share the same workplace, the same types of duties, but who for historic reasons have been locked in behind fellow employees for many reasons. To cite just one example, a situation that was resolved when bargaining came into the public service was the fact that women performing the same janitorial duties as men in institutions were being paid half or two-thirds the salary of their male counterparts. That was an historic fact. It was something of long standing. It was a grievance that was creating terrible stresses in the workplace, and that was resolved in an arbitration award. The result of that award meant a substantial increase in compensation for those women who had been performing work heavy in nature, but who had not been receiving the proper remuneration for that work.

Mr. Chairman, to translate that situation into the contemporary situations before us at the moment, it would mean that Mr. Peck would not have the authority to really take into account the historic nature of that situation or the full redress required to settle a stressful and disruptive employee situation and to rectify it. That is the role that arbitrators can play. Oftentimes arbitrators are lawyers, and I don't think that they should be. I think that there are some groups that deliberately ensure that it is not just the legal profession that plays an arbitrator role, but people of a fair-minded nature who want justice, who want to see justice done, who are willing to write a fair decision that goes right down the middle so that both sides can live with the situation adequately. This, Mr. Chairman, is going to create turmoil throughout thousands of workplaces in the province, because there is no way to adequately redress past inequities, and there will be guidelines passed on from the cabinet through to Mr. Peck, who will then make a determination consistent with his mandate.

We hear a lot about the ability to pay on the employers' side, but we hear nothing about the employees' ability to meet their own commitments, whether it is in terms of their accommodation, their health or their domestic requirements.

HON. MR. CURTIS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the member who has just taken his seat, this is section 1. It deals only with arbitrators and arbitration awards. The member speaks of ability to pay, which is dealt with elsewhere in the amending act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister; certainly you have a good point. Up to that point I felt the member was being quite relevant in his remarks. So if he would just carry on in the same vein as he started, everything would be fine.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make passing reference to the ability to pay simply because if there is a past or historic inequity in a workplace which would require a catchup or some kind of major modification of the salary package to rectify that situation, clearly Mr. Peck's guidelines and the notion of the employer's ability to pay would not be able to respond adequately to that situation.

Arbitration, as I've stated, is a longstanding and civilized way of dealing with disputes. There are those who are very naive and feel that to pass a law or to take away a right will create harmony, or that in some way the employees will then acquiesce to being stripped of their self-respect. Mr. Chairman, the arbitration process is one that has been used extensively in our province, and this particular section strips away the right of local employers and employees in the public sector to come to a dispute on a mutually agreed-upon basis. It also hampers any arbitrator from coming to a resolution, because he or she must operate within the narrow guidelines and regulations of this act. Now the regulations of the act, of course, will be subject to change by the cabinet. Therefore it is like the goalposts moving during a game or the World Series being played, where all of a sudden the commissioner of baseball introduces a new rule in the ninth inning, which creates distress not only among the participants but among those who are observing what is taking place.

Mr. Chairman, the people who are concerned about the implications of this bill, in terms of labour stability in the province, go far beyond those individuals directly affected in terms of those whose wages or working conditions are likely to come before Mr. Peck. There are small business people who are extremely concerned about the devastating impact that these kinds of sections are going to have on the confidence of working people in the public sector to respond in terms of their own needs, and their confidence to spend and to facilitate a recovery.

There are those, in addition to those immediately affected, who are immediately affected but who are innocent bystanders, so to speak, and see an unjust situation occurring when a basic freedom — the right to collective bargaining, the right to bargain for one's own wages and working conditions — is taken away. That is clearly being taken away in Section 1 of the bill.

We understand, Mr. Chairman, that there is not a lot of money available, and that manifests itself at the bargaining table in a free and democratic society. I might just remind you that when collective bargaining took place in the public sector in the bargaining unit within the Public Service Labour Relations Act during high-interest periods, when inflation was high and interest rates were very high.... Prior to that time a contract was negotiated, after a lengthy period of negotiations, of 8 percent per year for three years. During that three-year period mortgage rates and interest rates ran exceedingly high, up to 21 and 22 percent, and many clerical people and people in the low-income scale of the public sector were locked into long-term, high-interest mortgages; at the same time their wages were increasing at half the rate of inflation. Did they ask to have their contract ruled null and void so they could go back to the bargaining table and start fresh? Did they argue that their ability to pay had been hampered? They toughed it out, Mr. Chairman. They honoured the sanctity of the collective agreement that they had signed with the government. They honoured that and went back to the bargaining table, as they should have done, to attempt to meet their needs, which were catchup.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We've kind of stepped away from arbitration, it seems, hon. member.

MR. HANSON: I'm pointing out, Mr. Chairman, that circumstances change for employees and for employers.

[ Page 2740 ]

Often those disputes can be resolved by an arbitrator. What we have happening is that the cabinet has introduced legislation to remove that possibility in the resolution of conflict. The last thing we want, in the depths of a depression, is industrial conflict. But the government seems to feel that it can use the force of its May 5 mandate to muscle its own employees and other public sector employees to the ground, and also to strip away their ability to protect themselves.

MS. SANFORD: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I draw to your attention the fact that we don't have a quorum in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, please. The Chair will check.

We have a quorum now. Thank you, hon. member. Will the first member for Victoria continue, please.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, we have a question of freedom before us. It is the right, first of all, to bargain freely for one's own livelihood. I know that that's a contentious issue. I know that it's a political issue. But it is certainly something that is upheld, not only by trade unions but by churches and by free-minded individuals in our western democracies. People have the right....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I regret rising on a point of order, but this is not second reading debate. We have a compensation stabilization program in place. This is an amending act and, with respect, if we are to follow the rules of committee, this section simply speaks about arbitrators and arbitration awards, and nothing else. I really would suggest that we cannot revisit the whole principle of compensation stabilization in this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. The point is well taken. We realize that this is not second reading. This is the committee stage, where we deal with detail, as opposed to the philosophy of the whole act. I would ask the member for Victoria if he would try and direct his remarks more specifically toward the content of section 1, arbitration.

[4:15]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like, then, to address a question to the minister. What occurs when there is a situation in a workplace of the type that I outlined earlier, where there had been an historic misalignment, for want of a better word, of two levels of compensation within a workplace, and an arbitrator could be resolving it and bringing forward information on comparability? The situation that I'd referred to was male and female janitors, but in this case it could be two groups of workers in classifications that are essentially performing functions of equal value, yet the compensation of the two has been historically out of line. An arbitrator or a board could come to terms with that and settle that in the workplace. Yet I don't see any evidence of Mr. Peck's guidelines being able to take into account historic factors that will clearly redress that kind of a situation. I know in his formula there is a modicum of leverage. If you have a festering, disruptive, long-standing situation in a workplace that cannot be resolved with Mr. Peck's guidelines, how do you deal with it?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, speaking strictly to the section and attempting to answer the first member for Victoria, I frankly see no difficulty with respect to the question of comparability to which the member has directed his attention. Quite the contrary. An arbitrator or an arbitration board, with passage of this section and this amending act, may be able more readily to identify some of the discrepancies to which the member has alluded and which we know have existed from time to time with respect to employee groups and employers. All this section says is that arbitrators must take into account the provisions of the Compensation Stabilization Act when they're making the arbitration awards involving groups of public sector employees. That is all that it says. It says no more, Mr. Chairman.

I realize that other members opposite want to speak on this. I may be able to offer some further thoughts. It simply says that when an arbitrator arrives on the scene or an arbitration board is required in a dispute, the compensation stabilization program, as it will be amended, must be taken into account.

MR. HANSON: I have another question for the minister. What arbitrations precipitated the introduction of this legislation into the house?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I would have to answer numerically rather than specifically. I was prepared for a question of this nature.

I speak in passing only of the very significant success the total program has had since the legislation was introduced, since the program was announced last year. So much for that. Back to the section. Eighty-seven percent of the 983 compensation plans submitted were approved in the first instance. It was found, Mr. Chairman, that considerable difficulty — and I use "considerable" carefully — was experienced with those plans under CSP which were initially rejected. Some 30 percent were arbitration awards. I think this could be seen by the committee as one indication of problems associated with that aspect of the negotiating process. As I say, I do not have the specifics, but I think the numerical response of 30 percent of those which were in difficulty at the outset was related to those which had gone to arbitration in one form or another.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I was trying to have the minister explain to us how arbitrators might more readily be able to address those discrepancies that exist within the various contracts that were alluded to by my colleague the first member for Victoria. The minister didn't explain how the arbitrators might more readily be able to identify those differences. I fail to see that placing the arbitrators under the compensation stabilization guidelines, which we're doing in Section 1 of this amending act by placing the arbitration process under the guidelines of the compensation stabilization program, is going to enable the arbitrators better to determine the discrepancies that exist. That was brought to the minister's attention by the first member for Victoria.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's unfortunate that the government has chosen to include this section which makes the whole arbitration process subject to the guidelines included in the compensation stabilization program. Part and parcel of the whole collective bargaining process over the years has been this ability, when a dispute arises, for the parties to go to arbitration knowing that within the province we have a body of people who are independent, who are knowledgeable about collective bargaining and arbitration processes and who have been able over the years, with a great deal of

[ Page 2741 ]

success, to come up with solutions that are acceptable to both parties in the end; sometimes not very readily, I recognize. Nonetheless, it was the best possible system that we could devise in order to ensure that collective bargaining could be successfully concluded.

By putting these arbitrators under this program we have taken away their very independence. They've taken away their integrity. There are many talented what I would call professional people, professional arbitrators, who are now asked under this legislation to become lackeys of the government. They are asking the arbitrators to take on the political work which that minister is asking them to do under this act. That's unfair, and it's dangerous, because it's only one more step in destroying the industrial relations climate of this province, which this government has done under many other sections under many other bills.

Surely, if the minister understands the need for independence in the work of arbitration in the industrial relations field, he will recognize that this section does not belong in this bill. If he has any understanding of collective bargaining and what we're attempting to do in this province by establishing a climate in which collective bargaining can take place successfully, then this section would not be in this bill. The minister has embarked here on yet another attack on the process and on the atmosphere and the climate that government should set for that whole process to take place. Arbitration as we know it will no longer exist, because an arbitrator must be free to determine the best possible settlement to any dispute, based on the facts before him, not the political direction that's given to them by this government or by that minister. If we are going to have successful arbitration, that is an absolute necessity, Mr. Chairman. It's unfortunate that the minister can't seem to recognize that; nor can his government. I think there will be a number of very unhappy people who have served this province well in the field of arbitration who are now forced to knuckle under to the wishes of government and its political needs of the day in order to serve as arbitrators under this particular bill.

Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering whether or not the minister has had any discussion whatsoever with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and the arbitration process that takes place — and those arbitrators will be affected by this bill as well — between the school boards of the province and the teachers. As the minister well knows, most of the agreements between the teachers' federations and the school districts are settled through arbitration.

I mentioned some time ago that I felt that the Minister of Education should consider at this time eliminating entirely the arbitration procedure that's now allowed under the School Act. The minister said he would consider it. I'm wondering whether or not the Minister of Finance has discussed with the Minister of Education eliminating that procedure entirely. What's the point? It's a very expensive procedure. I think it costs some $2 million to $3 million a year in this province for all of those arbitrations to take place.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) agreed that because arbitration as we have known it in the past will no longer exist under this Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act perhaps they should eliminate that entire procedure that's now allowed under the public schools act. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that when you are destroying the whole arbitration process as we have come to know it, and as right-wingers and employers over the years have come to view favourably this procedure.... You know, most right-wingers think arbitration's a great solution to the disputes that occur between labour and management. Over the years they have agreed that arbitration.... Here we are eliminating that procedure, that process and that concept: arbitrators must be able to act independently, and they can no longer do that under this bill.

I'm wondering if the minister has had discussions with the Minister of Education concerning the school boards and the teachers particularly. And I'm wondering whether he has had discussions with the other ministers who are affected under this legislation with respect to the arbitration procedures that the employees for those ministries have come to know, expect, rely on and turn to. I'm thinking that by placing arbitrators and arbitration boards under this particular section, they may as well eliminate the whole process. They're paying enough money already for the compensation stabilization commissioner and his staff. Why involve the independent arbitrators in a procedure which has no meaning any more? It all has to fall under the compensation stabilization program, it all has to receive the scrutiny of the commission, and I don't see that we have any real arbitration at all with this particular approach adopted by the Minister of Finance in this bill.

I wonder if the minister would respond to some of those points.

[4:30]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, restricting myself to the section which is before us, section 1, I can tell the member for Comox that of course there has been extensive consultation with other ministers in this government, leading to the presentation of this bill. Unlike a number of those which I have to speak to in this House, this is not a tax bill; this is a bill, therefore, which received — as the member will know — and I can assure her if she did not know — very wide consultation among members of the executive council. I am not going to repeat for the member specific discussions which I may have had with individual ministers, but I speak as one member of this committee indicating that the consultations did take place leading to this Section in this bill which is before us.

There was a suggestion on the part of a couple of the speakers — not so much the speaker from Comox; well, yes, she did allude to it — that the compensation stabilization program of 1982 made no mention of arbitration or arbitrators in any way, shape or form. She will know and will admit, because we had weeks of debate on the whole bill last year — and we may again this year, Mr. Chairman — that section 29 deals specifically with arbitration awards. So it would not be correct for the committee this afternoon or tonight or tomorrow or the next day to draw the conclusion that this is the first time there has been reference to arbitrators or arbitration awards.

Again, it seems to me that the section is really quite narrow in scope, but not narrow with respect to the arbitration process. It says: "Arbitrators, you must take into account the compensation stabilization program as it exists from time to time" — the guidelines and the regulations, about which we will speak later. But that is all it asks and all it directs. I think I said the same sort of thing last year. I perhaps have not had the intensive experience on one side of a bargaining table that some members have had; nonetheless, I have been involved in public sector negotiation, and I have found it necessary or advisable to turn to the arbitration process to seek that

[ Page 2742 ]

third-party assistance. So I don't come to this debate completely uninformed about the process. Certainly, since the CSP was introduced I think I've learned considerably more.

The point I want to make is that the arbitration process and arbitrators themselves, in this province or in any other jurisdiction, must pay heed, be cognizant of and take into account the law of that province as it exists from time to time. The Employment Standards Act.... I won't speak of other legislation on which we have been working as a committee or as a Legislature; it is simply another reference to the statutes of the province of British Columbia saying: "When you come, in the public sector, to attempt to assist a group of employees and an employer, you must take into account the provisions of the compensation stabilization program." I am not aware — and if the committee is, Mr. Chairman, I'd be grateful — of any arbitrator who has said: "This is the end of my function, the end of my contribution to trade union and public sector management negotiations. It's game over. I can be of no further help." I haven't heard that, and I think it's very important that we.... If any of the members opposite have specific examples of arbitrators who have said, "That's the end of it, can't function, have to move, have to concentrate on the private sector, that's just the worst thing that's happened," then I'd like to hear about that. I haven't heard about that, and my inquiries have not suggested that that sort of comment has been made.

MS. SANFORD: What I said was that arbitration as we know it — that is, as an independent process, independent of political interference and any direction by government — will no longer exist. There's no way around that, because the arbitrators can no longer look at what is presented to them by the employers and the employees, and arrive at some sort of a decision. Leave it up to the commissioner; leave it up to Peck to determine whether it has to be rolled back or whatever; but the independence of that whole procedure is lost. It has ended. And that disturbs me, because it is an interference with the whole collective bargaining process — and arbitration is very much a part of that process — which is going to lead to a further deterioration of industrial relations in this province. The minister certainly confirmed what I said earlier, when he said that he had consulted with all of his colleagues and this is what they had come up with.

What I'm saying is that the people who are in charge these days, the Socred government, do not understand that process, and won't suggest what the other alternative is. I'll be kind, and say that they don't understand this process and that's why they've included this in here.

Of course, the minister did not answer the question that was posed first of all by the member for Victoria, and then repeated by me, about how arbitrators are better able to determine discrepancies that exist between various groups of employees under this system than they were under the previous system. He didn't mention that. I would hope that maybe he'll get to his feet and explain what he meant by that, because I still do not understand what he means by that at all.

The other thing: he mentioned that he had had extensive consultation with his colleagues who are affected by this bill — the members of cabinet — and he wasn't going to reveal to me the outcome of those individual conversations. But I would suggest that the consultation with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) was not very extensive, because when I raised this issue with the Minister of Education in this House about two weeks ago, that minister had not considered at all the arbitration provisions between the schoolteachers and the school boards of the province. He said he certainly would consider that. So I wonder what sort of extensive consultations have taken place in that cabinet on this particular section and this particular elimination of arbitration as we have come to know it, and which unfortunately is a dangerous precedent and yet another example of the interference of this government in collective bargaining, and of its — should I say determination? Perhaps unwilling determination. I'm not sure what to say about this, Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to be kind. But the effect of what they're doing is further deterioration in that industrial relations climate, and that won't benefit anyone. I suggest that if they eliminate arbitrators from this section, they will be doing the province a service.

The other thing the minister mentioned, Mr. Chairman, was that arbitrators and arbitration procedures were in fact covered in the initial bill passed in 1982, the Compensation Stabilization Act, which this bill before us amends. If it's the case that the whole procedure was covered, then why do we need this additional section here today? I submit that it's to change the arbitration procedures and to give the government even more control over the incomes of those people who are employed in the public sector. It's more centralization: the government is tightening the noose and is using the arbitrators of the province, who have served us so well over these years, to carry out its political will, and that's tragic.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering how the minister justifies adding arbitrators in this particular section of the Compensation Stabilization Act when in fact it would seem to contravene what the Labour Code has to say about arbitrators. I'm looking at section 92(3) of the Labour Code:

"An arbitration board, to further the intent and purpose expressed...shall have regard to the real substance of the matters in dispute and the respective merit of the positions of the parties to it under the terms of the collective agreement, and shall apply principles consistent with the industrial relations policy of this act, and is not bound by a strict legal interpretation of the issue in dispute."

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that by putting arbitrators in the position of having to fall under the terms of the Compensation Stabilization Act, what in fact we're doing is saying to arbitrators that they cannot follow the law as set out in the Labour Code; they will have to contravene those instructions which are enshrined in legislation if they are going to be bound by this piece of legislation. The Labour Code makes it binding upon both parties if you go to arbitration. Both parties must agree that this is a binding settlement. Yet that is not going to apply if arbitrators and arbitration awards are subject to this particular bill. It's removing their powers completely, and it's contrary to what we have written in the Labour Code, as far as my interpretation of the Labour Code goes. It's absolutely contrary to the terms of reference, the responsibilities and the mandatory requirements that both parties involved agree to accept that award.

I think that has to take precedence over putting arbitrators into this particular bill. We have a compensation stabilization officer who has some pretty great powers; mighty powers, in fact.

[4:45]

Interjection.

[ Page 2743 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, awesome powers; right. The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is helping me out. And he does have awesome powers, because he has the power at present to overrule what an arbitrator or an arbitration board comes up with, as set out in this piece of legislation. It's pretty awesome to be able to overrule something that's done in accordance with a section in an act which is as substantive as that one is. It gives him broad, sweeping powers. You may say those are awesome powers, but those powers are established in that particular bill. Now we're not only going to allow the Compensation Stabilization Act to override what they do, but we're going to say they can't even do that.

Why do we need it both ways? Surely we have to allow the system to work. If you check your own remarks, Mr. Minister, I think you will find that you have indicated that very few cases have actually come out of arbitration and gone before the compensation stabilization officer. They have been very much in line. There haven't been many cases referred, so why are you curtailing this? What reason? There doesn't seem to be any reason to it — unless it is that you want to completely destroy the process of collective bargaining. It seems to be part and parcel of that vendetta that this government is embarked upon to destroy the whole process of a sane and productive kind of labour relations in this province, where we don't have the kind of conflict that's bound to result from this kind of move. When you take away that authority, that ability, that right from the arbitrators or the arbitration board, then you're immediately putting the people involved, the people who are going to arbitrated, in a very awkward position. They have to agree to accept the award; it's a mandatory award coming down from that arbitration board. They realize that that award is not going to be made on the terms of the Labour Code; it's going to be limited by the terms of compensation stabilization, which is in turn limited by regulations.

Mr. Chairman, you may be aware and you may not, but before you came into this House we saw those goal-posts changing so fast that the minister was saying something in the House when introducing the bill and the Premier was in the hall saying something else. That's how quickly they were changing — how unreliable, how indefinite those goal-posts are. So we are now putting arbitration boards and arbitrators in the position of making decisions based on the Compensation Stabilization Act, which is based on regulations which will change from time to time. Who knows where that award is supposed to come down? What employer or group of employees would agree to go to binding arbitration under those conditions? And what's the alternative? It's a strike or a lockout. That's exactly the direction this is taking us. I don't know if the minister has any response to that or not, but to me it's a travesty to be in this kind of a position with this piece of legislation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I fear that in some respects we are not only revisiting second reading debate, but on the basis of the remarks by the member for Cowichan-Malahat, who has just taken her seat, we are also revisiting the debate which occurred last year when the compensation stabilization program was put in. It worked, Mr. Chairman! And the members opposite refused to recognize that it could work, resisted it every single step of the way week after week, in this chamber. It worked, and they don't have the courage to say today that it has worked. So much for my straying from this section, Mr. Chairman.

MS. SANFORD: You're starting to lose your cool.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I am cool, Madam Member, very cool and relaxed, and prepared to stay here as long as you want on this section and on other sections.

I do owe the member for Comox a comment with respect to — she questioned me twice, and it was not a deliberate oversight — the unequal treatment of employees. We still have the situation of some public sector employees being paid under compensation stabilization and others not. This section directs the arbitrator to take that into account at any particular stage of his or her involvement — or their involvement — in the process. I think it was the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) who developed that thesis initially. He suggested that this section is a very slippery slope — if I recall his words; I'm pretty close — towards unequal treatment. It's quite the reverse, Mr. Chairman. It leads to further equity, further fairness in the program, because it says to the arbitrators or the arbitration board that they have to take compensation stabilization into account. This amending act only deals with compensation. It doesn't deal with other aspects of the workplace, other aspects of the relationship between the employee and the employer. It was never intended to. It did not last year; it does not this year.

Mr. Chairman, I trust that I have at least stated the government position. I don't expect that I will satisfy members on the opposite side, who have found it appropriate to oppose this legislation from the day it was announced by the Premier of the province on February 18, 1982.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the hon. member for North Island, I would like to point out that the Chair is a good listener. I've listened very carefully to everything that has been said. It has been stated, and it is very true, that this particular section, by its very nature, is limited in the scope of debate that can be brought forward. Up to this point in time, I would go so far as to congratulate speakers on how relevant they have been. But latterly the Chair has been hearing some repetition, which I suppose is bound to happen by the very nature of the beast we're dealing with.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to ask the minister whether he agrees with this statement by his former deputy: "In the final instance, when incomes policy objectives come into conflict with industrial relations considerations, the former has paramountcy." I'm sorry, it's not your former deputy; it's the former Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations and current president of the Employers' Council of B.C. — Mr. Matkin's statement. My apologies for misleading the House on this.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would be interested in the member's view, since he has raised the matter under Section I of this amending act. Perhaps he would care to tell the committee how he feels about it.

MR. GABELMANN: I have done that, and I am going to be very careful to keep within your strictures, Mr. Chairman, and not repeat myself. I made some comments earlier, around five to four, on that precise point, and I'll do it again very briefly, to indicate to the minister that I happen to believe that the process of arbitration, which is an integral part of industrial relations policy and procedures in this province, is essential in terms of preserving long-term industrial relations

[ Page 2744 ]

in this province. I find that more important than saying to a group of workers: "Because you have signed a first collective agreement, and the arbitration award has attempted to bring you up to the prevailing rate, already agreed to by the compensation commissioner in other settlements, that arbitrator will be told by the commissioner that he cannot bring you up to prevailing rates in a first agreement."

There are two issues that I am raising in this matter. One is the whole paramountcy of normal collective bargaining and industrial relations, which is being subverted by this section, in my view. The other is the position of the former Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, who says that industrial relations is less important than a rigid — and I emphasize the word "rigid" — adherence to an incomes policy, which, in the case that I'm beginning to talk about, is applied absolutely inequitably. It is my understanding that the Ontario program allows for first collective agreements to be considered separately from subsequent collective agreements under their incomes policy. I wonder what the minister's views are on these two questions that I raise. One is the threat to industrial relations and the choice that it appears the government is making that a rigid application of an incomes policy comes first. The second is his view about first collective agreements which bring workers up to the prevailing rate in a particular sector.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Answering the second question first, I would refer the member for North Island to later debate in committee stage of this bill. There is an amendment on the order paper where I think that debate might be more appropriate. I know the circumstance of which he speaks, and I think we could debate it more effectively later.

The question of a "rigid" incomes policy. I am pleased that he recognized that he threw me the first time when he referred to someone who has not made such a statement — i.e. the Deputy Minister of Finance. A "rigid" incomes policy suggests, among other things — I feel constrained by the fact that this section deals only with arbitrators, but I will go so far as the Chair will let me — the 6 and 5 percent policy, or 5 and 5. The fundamental thing which the arbitration process will still be able to take into account, as enunciated in section 1, is the fact that we have a range. So "rigid" is not an appropriate adjective to use in connection with the original program or the amended program we are debating today.

I trust that these comments may invite more debate, but strictly speaking to section 1, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) may have missed my remarks. I don't think she was in the House at the time. There is very strong evidence of success of the program, but some have created difficulties. There have been difficulties with some settlements. Of the 129 plans initially rejected, Madam Member, 30 percent were arbitration awards. I tried to explain earlier in the debate on the section that this is one indication of the kind of problem which arbitrators had with the program, or which the program had with arbitrators. You can look at it either way. Therefore, it is necessary to bring the arbitration process more clearly under the compensation stabilization program. In fact, to expand further — and the information that I share with the committee is very recent; I can't commit that it is up-to-date within days — of the 42 arbitration awards received so far in the commissioner's office, only 4 were approved after initial review. I offer that information to the member for Cowichan-Malahat, recognizing that she may not have heard my comments in my earlier response.

[5:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about the arbitration process, because in our estimation this first section is a key component of this act. I think, first, we should reflect deeply on the procedures that have been established over the years in Canadian labour law to establish sensible and reasonable arbitration processes. If there is one area that has taken a long time, hours and hours of discussion by many experts and lay people, it has been in the area of grievance arbitration. It is a delicate area; anybody who decides to tread there should go very lightly. There is a fine balance. It is an important part of the labour process, an extension of the collective bargaining process, often when the collective bargaining process has not worked at its best.

Again, as I have done a number of times on labour bills, I caution the government to think about the whole question of arbitration and to be very careful about impacting upon the role of the arbitrator to take total control of the situation. Because of the little time we have as MLAs to do research, I will take the opportunity to share with the House a definition of arbitration. First, from The Concise Oxford Dictionary, which might be useful, the definition of an arbiter: "Judge; one appointed by two parties to settle dispute; an umpire; one who has entire control." I think that is a very important description of the arbiter and the arbitration process.

Clearly, under section 1, there is a major shift in terms of the role of the arbiter in the arbitration process. It's a major intrusion into long-established Canadian labour practices. Again, as one member of this House, I urge the government to think more seriously about treading into that area, which could create many deep problems for the government. It may be a short-term or political solution, but in terms of its impact on the labour situation, it may sow the seeds of all sorts of problems for the government and for the province of British Columbia.

Again, from the dictionary. "Arbitration. Deciding of dispute by an arbiter; authoritative decision." Again, this is an important description.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I think it is very important to start at the roots in terms of the bill. Take a look at the roots of what you're doing, Mr. Member, and maybe we can start to analyze the overall impact of your legislation. Let's start at the accepted descriptions of certain words. The Oxford dictionary is a pretty good source for that.

Authoritative decision; again the concern should be that the government in its wisdom is deciding to make fairly major intrusion into that authoritative decision-making process, one that the minister and the government should think most closely about.

Mr. Chairman, I started with the Oxford dictionary, but I'd like to move on to probably the most well-known landmark book written about Canadian labour law. I have cited it before, but these will be new sections, something that I think all sides believe in and support. It's Canadian Labour Arbitration by Brown and Beatty, 1977 edition, for the loyal public servant over there who's taking notes.

[ Page 2745 ]

This particular piece of work is important and should be reflected upon not only by those who are going to be involved in the arbitration process, but by the politicians about to make the decisions. I would just like to quote for the edification of all members of the House some thoughts that come from the introduction of this very learned book. "There is no inevitability about the manner in which arbitrators may perform their task. The arbitrator might content himself with looking to the dictionary meanings" — as I have just done — "of the words in the contract to dispose of the unanticipated case."

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, being in committee, it's my understanding that the rules of relevancy are much more stringent. The standing order, I believe, refers to strict relevance. It seems to me that the comments of the hon. second member for Victoria would be more appropriate in discussing the principle in second reading. I would request the Chairman's direction in asking the speaker to be strictly relevant to the very, very narrow principle of the first section in this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member, for bringing that to the Chair's attention. The point of order is extremely well taken. We are in committee, and debate in committee must be strictly relevant to the section or clause that the committee is considering at the time. I'm sure the second member for Victoria can relate his remarks with strict relevancy to section 1 before us as it stands.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't think there's any more relevant part to this act, or to this particular section which obviously reflects on the process of arbitration and the work of arbitrators. I am indeed quoting from the most well-known authoritative book on this particular issue of arbitration and arbitrators. Mr. Chairman, I think it's very appropriate to reflect on them. So if I may, I will just continue. It doesn't go on for very long, but I think it's important to consider it.

"The arbitrator might content himself with looking to the dictionary meanings of the words in the contract to dispose of the unanticipated case. He might rely on ancient common-law precedents, especially those drawn from the law of master-servant relationship. Alternatively, he might simply react intuitively to the perceived equities of the individual case. By and large, as this treatise indicates, Canadian arbitrators have taken none of these routes. Instead, they have gradually evolved a set of reasoned principles of the law of the collective agreement, founded on analysis of the function of particular contract provisions, larger assumptions about collective bargaining relationships, a sense of the typical expectations of labour negotiators, and so on. That product, stated in precise, jurisprudential terms, is a principle of the law of the collective agreement. By this I mean that an arbitration doctrine is not a binding directive about what the parties must agree to, no matter how clearly expressed is their intention to the contrary. Rather, in those cases where the intention of the parties is either murky or unformed, the function of the arbitration doctrine is to supplement the initial bargain which has been reached, to provide the result which at least in normal circumstances is considered to be the most sensible."

Mr. Chairman, the introduction of this book goes on and says: "I believe this jurisprudence is one of the most remarkable feats of legal creativity in the entire Canadian legal system in the postwar period. It certainly is quite unlike the typical operation and product of Canadian adjudication throughout that period." Mr. Chairman, what they are basically saying is that this arbitration jurisprudence has been produced through the collective or collaborative efforts of judges, lawyers, law teachers and labour-management experts. It's been developed through much blood, sweat and tears to try to ensure that there is a fair and equitable process at the end of the system to deal with particular problems.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And now perhaps we could relate the comments to the compensation plans for public sector employees.

MR. BLENCOE: I am, indeed, Mr. Chairman, because what they....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's clearly what is in the section.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, what this section does, Mr. Chairman, is put restrictions on the arbitrators in terms of what the government says they can deal with — the terms of reference. I'm saying that arbitrators traditionally have been the ultimate control and through their expertise in analyzing situations have come up with decisions that take both sides into consideration. This particular section is extremely important when you consider the many years that have gone into ensuring that the arbitration process is understood and, indeed, is respected by all sides. The major concern we have on this side of the House is that you are now really shackling that process. You're making a major intrusion into something that has taken a long time to come. This is a word of caution for perhaps a reconsideration by the government of taking on such a sensitive area, one that generally is perceived to have worked well.

MR. MICHAEL: On a point of order, I feel that this subject he's on right this minute has been well canvassed. It's been repeated many times during the debate. We've been on this debate now for close to two hours — about an hour and 45 minutes — and I'd like the Chair to ask the speaker to stick to section 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. The member has been advised that in fact we are in a very specific section, clarifying that the act applies to arbitrators of awards containing compensation plans for public sector employees in the province of British Columbia. I'm sure the member can relate his remarks to the specific confines of that section before us now.

MRS. WALLACE: While my colleague is getting his facts together and making sure that he can speak in order, I have.... First of all, I'd like to thank the minister for mentioning the 30 percent of the 129 awards. Thirty percent isn't that much, Mr. Chairman. You know, 70 percent of the awards were not arbitration awards. So 30 percent doesn't make me believe that that's a big enough percentage to bring in a sledge-hammer like this.

I just have a quick question for the minister. We've been talking about arbitrators and arbitration awards, and we've

[ Page 2746 ]

been thinking in terms of arbitrators as appointed under the Labour Code. What about the Arbitration Act? Are arbitrators appointed under the Arbitration Act also going to be included under compensation stabilization if, in fact, they were arbitrating something relative to the public sector? If so, would the terms of the Arbitration Act apply to those arbitrators or would they be covered by the Compensation Stabilization Act? I wonder if the minister could advise me.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, this section, rather than identifying the duties of arbitrators, directs them to consider the compensation stabilization plan, the original act, and this amendment which is before us. Any arbitrator, therefore, who was involved in a public sector compensation issue would be directed to this section.

[5:15]

MRS. WALLACE: It's very interesting, when you have a look at the Arbitration Act and some of the powers spelled out in the Arbitration Act. I'm wondering whether or not we're in contravention of that piece of legislation as well as the Labour Code — perhaps even more so, because the Arbitration Act specifies very clearly that the courts are supreme. Section 23 of this act applies to an arbitration to which the Crown in right of the province or a minister of the province is party. Again, Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned about what we're doing here. Are we getting some kind of legislation that's going to wind up in the courts and be declared ultra vires? I don't want to be out of order, but I'm thinking of some of the things that have happened relative to our new constitution. Some of the clauses in that are being referred to the courts. We could find this particular thing in the courts. It seems to be completely without reason or need.

The minister talks about 30 percent of 129. He has set up a compensation stabilization officer who is supreme, and if he can't deal with 30 percent of 129, which is about 37 or 38 cases, without having this particular clause in here, when the pitfalls that appear apparent to me just from a quick perusal of some of the legislation that's relevant to this particular thing could happen, I'm wondering why the minister is insisting on putting this in here. He has all the power he needs. He's not having that much of a concern. So why not drop it? It would simplify everything.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I too would run the risk of being tedious and repetitious if I canvassed that topic again. I've indicated that the bulk of the settlements of the compensation plans approved were done so quite apart from the arbitration process. However, there has been found a flaw in a program which has worked extremely well since it was announced and since this Legislature approved it last year. I don't want to stray further, as I indicated before the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) took his seat a few minutes ago. It is important, I think, for the member for Cowichan-Malahat to understand, once again, if I may say so, that the Arbitration Act deals with an incredibly wide variety of arbitration activities. This simply says that when there is a public sector settlement proposed, when there is a public sector dispute, when the compensation in the public sector is at issue, then the arbitration board must be cognizant of CSP. That's all it says. I can't forecast....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm sorry, I can't hear the interjection. I indicated earlier: "must take into account." Must be cognizant of, subject to — yes, fine....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: See, now the member is letting her imagination run away with her, directed politically.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, once again we reflect on the fact that the NDP lost the last election on the rejection of compensation stabilization. They fought it every step of the way, and they want to speak politically. Then I would be delighted to do that. But I don't think you would permit me to do it under section 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we have strayed about as far as we can go on this, hon. member.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I've been sitting here listening to this debate on this one motion for pretty close to three hours now....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Three hours?

MR. REYNOLDS: Quarter to four, quarter to five, quarter to six — two and a half hours. All right.

The repetition.... You've called the members to order many times and the minister has his answers, and I would move that the question be now put.

MR. BARNES: On a point of order, I just wanted to clarify whether the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound is suggesting that the Minister of Finance is tedious and repetitious. He was the last person to speak.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, hon. member, and a division has been called on the question.

Question approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 8

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

[ Page 2747 ]

[5:30]

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 8

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

On section 2.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I did have some notes prepared for section 1. However, closure was invoked, and you've all missed the opportunity to hear me being tedious and repetitious. However, we'll try it on section 2 and see what happens.

I heard an interjection across the floor while the division was being taken. The member for Vancouver Centre suggested that perhaps this section wasn't required at all and was strictly a political section. Well, I'm not sure about that, because I'm not a lawyer. There is one phrase in the section.... Well, the whole section bothers me. But now that I have the minister's attention, I was wondering if the minister, when he gets up to reply to either myself or other speakers, could tell us how the government intends to determine the employer's ability to pay. It's not like private business, where you know exactly what your income is, what your profits or your losses are, and you have a contract under the private sector much of the time with a bargaining unit.

With this government's most disastrous record of handling the finances of this province, where they've plunged us into debt by literally millions, if not billions, of dollars....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just relax. We're talking about the ability to pay, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We are all aware that we are in committee. Standing orders require that all debate be strictly relevant to the section under debate. I respectfully suggest that the hon. member is clearly digressing well beyond the strict relevant interpretation of section 2. I would ask the Chair to rein him in.

MS. SANFORD: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that when we are discussing an issue such as the employer's ability to pay, then we are looking at a very wide range of subjects. There is no way that the member for Mackenzie was out of order on that particular debate.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: He's talking about the economy, the ability to raise funds and the ability of the employer.... Mr. Chairman, it's the government that determines what school boards are going to get and so on and so forth. What we have to allow for here is discussion on the ability of the employer to pay, and that means raising funds and distributing those funds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All hon. members must bear in mind that the purpose of the act was discussed very thoroughly in second reading. Now we're discussing only this section. It is going to be difficult for members to remain relevant, but I would caution them that they must do so; otherwise, the Chair will be forced to ask them to take their place.

MR. LAUK: I didn't speak before you as Chairman commented upon the point raised by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks). Clearly, if you read the section proposed by way of amendment to the Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, it's a broad, preamble-type of section. It's a most unusual section and contains within it two broad statements of principle that have to be dealt with that were not canvassed, to any great extent, in second reading. How do you restrict people in committee on a preamble-type section? You can't do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There was no intention of the Chair to restrict debate. Even under the circumstances explained by the second member for Vancouver Centre, we still have a requirement to be relevant.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I won't go into the financial history and performance of the government as I see it. I don't think I have to do that to get my point across, although I think that under this section I have a right to. For your edification, I would like to read the section so everybody in the House will know the broad scope of the section we are currently discussing.

"Purpose of Act.

"2.1 The purpose of this Act is to establish a program that will encourage productivity and restrain and stabilize compensation in the public sector while ensuring that the paramount consideration for determining compensation is the public sector employer's ability to pay."

This is exactly what I am getting at. Who determines the public sector employer's ability to pay? How does the government determine that, Mr. Chairman? The normal procedure in the public service is for negotiators to sit down across the table and negotiate in good faith, reach a conclusion and either ratify contracts or whatever. However, what we have here, and what we'll be discussing in a section of this bill further down — I won't get into that here — are those various guidelines that I just referred to. I'd like the minister to explain to this House how they plan to determine.... I have a sneaking suspicion, Mr. Chairman, that the way the

[ Page 2748 ]

government is going to determine the ability-to-pay section, which we're discussing on section 2, is by going to cabinet and making an arbitrary decision to say that no matter what may have been determined in mediation, things will remain the same; employees will take a cut or maybe a slight increase in wages. But the decision will be made strictly in cabinet by very few people. If I'm wrong the minister can tell me right now.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I concur completely in the remarks made by my colleague from Mackenzie and the second member for Vancouver Centre. They suggested to the minister that the section is suspect by the inclusion of terminology that lends itself to a broad interpretation and doesn't seem to have very much of a purpose, other than to insure the plan of the government to undermine the ability of the public sector employees for effective collective bargaining with the government.

The member for Mackenzie read the section. I won't repeat it, but the salient point in the section is the employer's ability to pay. What criteria will there be for all parties concerned to rely upon? "Ability to pay" is a very slippery phrase, It doesn't lend itself to a strict definition. As the member for Mackenzie pointed out, it is going to be a device whereby the cabinet from time to time will be able to make decrees and declarations as it sees fit, not to mention the possibility under this section for the government simply to divest itself of any serious collective bargaining with any employees in the public sector. Clearly, the section leaves it up to the government to define unilaterally its abilities.

Can you imagine what the potential of this section could mean over the years, in undermining any legitimate attempt on the part of the parties concerned to seriously address the question of collective bargaining? It just isn't going to be possible under the section. It's far more than just a political device for the government to evade serious responsibility. It's a sham; in fact, as time goes along, it will be seen to be an intolerable situation for serious collective bargaining.

Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if you could bring the member for....

[5:45]

(Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) will come to order.

MR. BARNES: Quite frankly, I'm very saddened to see that the government would put a section with such a broad latitude and extreme openness in the bill, which really is a one-sided situation. It will protect the government's interest with no interest whatsoever for employees. But it will mean — and I'm sure the Minister of Finance is aware of of this — that as the months and years unfold, there will be less and less ability on the part of the government to pay; that this is really a prelude to a very determined, designed device to undermine any opportunity of the public sector employees to maintain any level of compensation that will provide them with the kind of income they need to survive.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Not true.

MR. BARNES: Yes, it is. The ability to pay will be defined differently from time to time, and I can assure you that there will be no pressure on the government to try to maintain a level of compensation that's just and fair, when it can always say: "We just can't afford it."

MRS. JOHNSTON: What about the pressure on the taxpayers?

MR. BARNES: Well, of course. We're talking about the problem, as the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) pointed out, that there is a difference between the public and the private sectors. He quite clearly pointed out that the private sector operates under a different set of parameters in certain situations than does the public sector, and it has been that way traditionally throughout the ages in all jurisdictions — this is no exception. Public sector employees are by nature and by circumstances.... The situation is such that it is not fair and legitimate to try to compare the two. They are two different situations. We need government, we need administration — that's what the taxes are for — in order to provide services for the public, and the Minister of Finance knows that.

This is why the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) suggested that section 2 is a political section, a section put in for the government's and the cabinet's benefit. It is not a serious attempt to suggest a device that will benefit an arbitrator or anyone else who is trying to arrive seriously at an equitable and fair share as far as.... It doesn't really matter how well the public sector performs, how much productivity they achieve, how conscientious they may be from time to time; the government will always have the option of saying: "We appreciate your good service, but...." The fact is, as it points out under the definition of productivity, that productivity is only relevant where there is the ability to pay in any event, so we can say that we've been producing and have become efficient and have streamlined our activities and are maximizing resources, and excelling over the previous years' achievements in performance and so forth, and notwithstanding any of that, the government can always say: "Well, we do not have the ability to pay, and it's quite clearly spelled out here under this section."

I would just like to have the minister, when he takes his place, clearly show without question, being very specific, how this will not be, in effect, an erosion of compensation to public sector employees over time, and deny that this is an opportunity for the government to take unfair advantage of the public sector employee. That's really the intent of this section, and I would hope that the minister will comment on that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'd like to try to group together answers to the member for Mackenzie and, more recently, the first member for Vancouver Centre. It seems to me that the employer's ability to pay, and then the taxpayer's ability to pay, however that taxpayer sends his or her money to a particular jurisdiction, are fundamental to ensuring that we don't run into bankruptcy sooner or later.

MR. MOWAT: That's a good question.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, I haven't finished the answer, Mr. Member. It's a very fundamental issue: how does one determine the employer's ability to pay? Well, if it is a municipal tax levy — the city of Prince George or the city of Vancouver determining its tax levy for the coming year —

[ Page 2749 ]

they must be cognizant of the taxpayer's ability to meet a certain levy. That is also fundamental, and it's perhaps one of the first rules that those of us who have the privilege to serve in local government learn. Otherwise we spent an awful lot of time at municipal council budget meetings, did we not? It was wasted time, if that wasn't really why we were there — to determine what had to be done and the ability of the property taxpayer, in that case, to cover those expenditures.

The same can be said about regional districts, hospitals, and transit. Transit is an interesting one, because they have access in some communities to a property tax levy, and in other instances to a power levy — gasoline; they also have to be cognizant of the farebox. They put all those elements together — or most of them, because they vary a little from area to area — and they then determine the service that they are going to operate and the ability of the taxpayer — i. e. the employer — to pay that cost. It is not a new concept — and I trust that I'm not straying from this section, Mr. Chairman; the ability-to-pay concept was in the guidelines which were issued July 27, 1982. The reference is the old guideline number 17. The principle, the purpose, has now been moved into the act because of its overwhelming importance, and the amended guidelines, which were just released, will reflect this revision.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What's the formula?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The members opposite say: "Well, what's the formula?" Well, I think, before I answer that, I just want to comment on one part that was referred to more particularly by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), that all of this is relative to decisions taken in the cabinet chamber. CSP goes much further than that. It reaches through the entire public sector in the province: the hospitals, the school districts, the municipalities. I've spoken of them, and we all know them; we can list them. It's much broader than cabinet decree. What can a community in the central interior afford to take from its taxpayers to provide a series of services which are required by those taxpayers versus a community in central Vancouver Island? The formula is to be determined as each jurisdiction, appropriate to itself. I think the members of the committee understand that. Ability to pay cannot be stated in an equation that says X times Y plus whatever.... It isn't that simple. All responsible individuals in the public-sector employer side of the system have to address that once a year or once a month. They have to ask themselves regularly how much money can be sent for this particular service in this particular area.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's more than a feeling, Mr. Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), much more than a feeling, if the employers in the public sector are doing their job, and by and large I think they are. It is a purpose; it was in the guidelines; I believe, Mr. Chairman, that it is essential that it be highlighted in the amending act which is before this committee now.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, here we have a preamble. There's no significant legislative reason why this section is included in the act; it doesn't add to or subtract from in any way the program of the compensation stabilization bill. It's a puzzle to us; it's a political statement. We ask the minister how you define ability to pay, and he's got this sort of loosey-goosey answer about what the taxpayers may be able to afford. or each municipal council will decide what their taxpayers can afford, and each Crown corporation board will decide, and the cabinet will decide, the minister will decide.... The whole question of ability to pay is not capable of definition without some arbitrary formula.

Why should we give power to the compensation stabilization structure from this committee unless we know what that formula is? Surely the government has an idea of what that formula is. If you have a war, you raise taxes to fight the war; if you want to limit public sector wages, you come out and say: "Here's the percentage that...." You can't say that it depends on ability to pay. If we were to take the government seriously, then why on earth have they raised user fees in health care, why have they raised sales taxes, why have they raised income taxes? Why have they raised the gasoline tax and the tobacco tax, bus fares, hydro rates and natural gas rates, that will force people not to convert to natural gas and may even force them to abandon natural gas? These are the same people paying the same taxes, and he's talking about ability to pay. We had a 7 percent limitation on increases in Crown corporation fees and other taxes of government.

This is a cynical political statement, and it should be opposed. It has no bearing on the bill itself, and I ask, Mr. Chairman, before you rise, that during the adjournment you consider standing order 75. If ever there was a ill that has been introduced in imperfect shape, this is it. Standing order 75 says this is an imperfect bill. Even looking at the English.... The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). a former English teacher, is absolutely pale. She is beside herself, she is abject; humiliated by the education system because the minister and all of his staff can't come up with better English. Here's the English: "The purpose of this act is to establish a program that will encourage productivity and restrain and stabilize compensation in the public sector while ensuring that the paramount consideration for determining compensation is the public sector employer's ability to pay." Totally incomprehensible English.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, it not only rambles — and thank you for joining in the debate....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'll give you a 2 out of 10 for.... No, I don't think I can give you 2 out of 10. We should send this back, under standing order 75, and ask you to rewrite it.

The committee rose.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

[ Page 2750 ]

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BlLLS

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:

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."