[ Page 4797 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Labour Code Amendment Act (Bill 28). Committee stage

On section 15 –– 4797

Mr. Gabelmann

Mrs. Wallace

On section 16 –– 4798

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. R. Fraser

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Michael

Third reading –– 4803

Division

Education Statutes (Fiscal Year) Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 27). Committee stage

On Section I –– 4803

Mr. Rose

On section 16 –– 4804

Mr. Rose

Ms. Sanford

On section 17 –– 4806

Mr. Rose

Hydro and Power Authority (Land Transfer) Act, 1984 (Bill 25). Committee stage

On Section I –– 4806

Mrs. Wallace

Third reading –– 4807

Hospitals Amalgamation Act (Bill 26). Committee stage

Third reading –– 4807

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 29). Committee stage

On Section I –– 4807

Mr. Cocke

On section 2 –– 4807

Mrs. Dailly

On section 5 –– 4807

Mrs. Dailly

Ms. Brown

Appendix –– 4809

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to bills, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 28.

LABOUR CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 15.

MR. GABELMANN: My main concern on section 15 is really a question. I am curious as to why 83(3) was amended to include the affiliation idea. Why wasn't it made 83(4)? Why has the health and safety issue in the Code, which is 83(3) at the present time...?

What 83(3) says at the present time is that an act or omission by a trade union or by the employees shall not constitute a strike where it is required for the safety or health of those employees. What the 83(3) amendment does is to add the affiliation clause as not constituting a strike except where 73(l) is applied. The problem as I see it — and maybe I'm misreading it — is that in 73(l) reference is made to 83(3) in its entirety. On a construction project which has been declared an economic development project, a health or safety issue could develop which transcends the development project. The right to strike under 83(3) is taken away between developments, from one development project to the next; and the desire of the government — apart from what we think about what you're doing — appears to be to make sure that the affiliation clause wouldn't shut down the neighbouring economic development project on that same greater site. But the way I read the amendments, what you've done is to also preclude the right to strike over the right to not work, or to not show up to work, over a question of health or safety. It could be that the health or safety question transcends more than one site. If, for example, it were an air quality problem, it could simply have been handled by making this amendment 83(4) and referring, in 73(l), to 83(4) rather than to 83(3). Why have you integrated the health and safety issue into 73(1) ?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm being slow to warm up now, because I don't think I'm reading correctly what you're saying. Are you saying we should have had a separate 83(4)? The amendment to section 83(3) deals only with non-affiliation clauses, not with health and safety. This is a positive amendment in terms of what we're doing. What we intend to do in 73, as I said yesterday afternoon, is simply to ensure that any economic development project is in a mixed site. In terms of 83(3), which refers to non-affiliation clauses, those non-affiliation clauses are protected on the site where the unionized contractor is working. They can't be transferred across the project to other projects, but we wanted to ensure that a worker, no matter where he is, can still down tools for those important health and safety reasons, and that's what we've done.

MR. GABELMANN: It may well be what has been done. One of us is slow to pick this up, and it may be me. Let me come out in another direction. When you refer to 83(3) in respect of 73(l), you're referring to both the affiliation clause and health and safety, because the new 83(3) includes both issues; 83(3) is amended to now read what's in the Code plus what's in the amendment. That's where we should start. We should make sure that we agree about that before we go any further. Am I right in saying that the new section 83(3), as amended, will now refer to both the health and safety issues and the affiliation issue?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, what we've done is just ensure that despite the fact that the non-affiliation clauses are restricted to that project within an economic development project, the opportunity for the workers to express their dissatisfaction with health or safety is not denied.

MR. GABELMANN: I think we might make more haste if we back up. Let's just deal with the first issue first. Section 83(3) as amended will include references to both health and safety and affiliation clauses. Right? We agree on that, I think.

Within an economic development project that is so named, or any construction project that hasn't been designated an economic development project, the right to down tools over health and safety questions and over the affiliation clause is there.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: "Or, " not "and."

MR. GABELMANN: The fact is that you could down tools over the question of health and safety; you can also down tools over the question of the affiliation clause if no economic project has been designated and if it is within the particular designation, but you can't cross over into the next designated area.

My concern is that 73(l) refers to the entire section 83(3), thus, I think, denying the right of workers in a neighbouring economic development project to down tools over a health and safety question that may transcend several of the projects. I wonder if that was your intent. Is that what it means? That's how it reads. Is that what it really does mean? I think there's been a drafting error. I think you simply mean, in fact, to have a section 83(4) — that this new section should be an independent subsection within section 83.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't agree. The words are "where it is required for the safety or health of those employees or where it is permitted." So there are two separate intents in that section. What will very likely happen is that there will be a number of individual projects on Expo, because by having it on a mixed site, Expo will have to be considered as a number of projects. We go back again to the famous Tasmania pavilion. I would say that if that were an economic development project, and, for instance, there was a union contractor involved who had in his collective agreement a non-affiliation clause, that non-affiliation clause would be honoured on that project but nowhere

[ Page 4798 ]

else. The same would be true of a health-and-safety issue; it would be honoured on that project. If that group, whether union or non-union.... They're only covered under the Code if they have a collective agreement in place anyway. If that group of employees had a safety worry and felt sufficiently about that safety problem that they wished to down their tools, they would be able to do it where that condition existed. I don't think that's any different from what's currently in place in the Code, where it says: "An act or omission or by a trade union or by the employees shall not constitute a strike where it is required for the safety or health of those employees." I don't think there's anything different here, Mr. Chairman,

[10:15]

MR. GABELMANN: I think we're getting somewhere in terms of the understanding of the section. My point is: what happens if the Tasmanian pavilion and the New Zealand pavilion are side by side and are designated separate economic projects; therefore the affiliation clause in the Tasmanian pavilion won't allow the New Zealand pavilion to be shut down.... I understand that. What happens if there's a health or safety factor that applies to both of them at the same time? Each of them could shut down separately within the.... What happens if the health and safety hazard is caused at one pavilion but affects the other? Would the workers at the other still have the right to down tools even though the health and safety issue is caused at the next site?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I can't think of something except that maybe they were building something over the roof of a building, or something like that. Should it happen, I would expect to see somebody before the Labour Relations Board for some kind of declaration on a matter like that. Conceivably that could happen, I'm sure, providing it could be proved that there was a legitimate safety issue involved.

MRS. WALLACE: I have just a very quick question. Subsections 83(l) and (2) relate to the employer. They're separate; they don't make (2) an addition so they both relate to the employer. Why is the minister including these both under the one?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What's wrong with it?

MRS. WALLACE: Just for the sake of consistency, it seems that it would be better to number it (1), (2), (3) and (4) rather than to throw all things relative to the employee into number (3) and leave (1) and (2) separated relative to the employer. Each specific thing is numbered. Why the decision? I guess I'm thinking there must be a reason for wanting to lump it together, or else it would be separated.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, we had many sleepless nights over this one, wondering whether we should put in another figure, number (4). It doesn't make any difference. All you'd have is another number. The act is very clear. I don't know what the big deal is.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

MR. GABELMANN: Section 16, Mr. Chairman, is the picketing section, one that — in my view at least — is fuzzy in terms of its implications. I guess I'll start this by asking some questions. First, doesn't the wording in fact outlaw primary picketing in some cases? If the IWA was on strike at MacMillan Bloedel in the forest industry, my reading of this is that the secondary picketing at the pulp mills would have to be approved by the Labour Relations Board. Is picketing at the MacMillan Bloedel headquarters primary or secondary picketing?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Are you waiting for that now?

MR. GABELMANN: I asked you a question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Continue, please.

MR. GABELMANN: I guess I'll have to continue if the minister won't answer that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, no, I'll answer it. I just wasn't sure that....

No, I don't think that does limit picketing at the headquarters. It's the same employer and the same business; it's an extension of the primary site. If, for instance, MacMillan Bloedel had their head offices in a shopping centre, they'd probably have to limit their picketing to where that office was, but it wouldn't stop those pickets from happening.

MR. GABELMANN: May I ask another technical question? If a pulp mill is on a legal strike, and there's a legal picket line in place around the pulp mill and everything is fine in terms of the law, and there's a construction project within that pulp mill, is the picketing of that construction project within that pulp mill primary or secondary?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I believe it would be a matter for the conscience of the people who were working on the construction site as to whether they wanted to cross picket lines. Second, it would be up to the employer to go to the board, I guess, under common site or some area like that and apply, should those people decide that they won't cross picket lines. I don't think there would be anything different then than now. That's generally what would happen. The employees — if they were union employees — obviously wouldn't cross the picket line, and so the employer would go to the Labour Relations Board and ask for some kind of a declaration, and they would have to look at it. Certainly it could be classed legal, I would think.

MR. GABELMANN: I raise that question because some lawyers have suggested to me that there is some very real doubt about what does constitute primary picketing, particularly in the example I used of the pulp mill. Clearly the workers on the construction project are not producing pulp, paper or whatever. I think there is at least some ambiguity.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't think the situation will change, Mr. Chairman. It still would come down to whether the board would make a ruling. I'm just reminded that on several occasions, such as the one you describe, in the past the board has, first of all, attempted to determine whether it was a separate site and if there was a way of gaining

[ Page 4799 ]

access without crossing picket lines. If the work was unrelated to the manufacture of pulp, then they would create some kind of a portal where there could be separate access maintained, and the work could continue. But if the board could determine no way of gaining that separate access.... The board has always and always will, I'm sure, respect the right of the union member not to cross a legal picket line.

MR. GABELMANN: If in fact it's a legal picket line around the project. I guess that's the question.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, not if it's the primary site. It would be....

MR. GABELMANN: I hope I hear the minister saying that primary sites include the primary site. I guess my concern is that it may be that the primary site is in fact more narrowly defined as a result of these amendments. Be that as it may, it's a question that will be determined when the first application is made to the LRB. I hope, when the LRB has the hearing and writes its report, that it takes into account the debate that happened here, and that there doesn't appear to be any intention of....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll send them a copy of Hansard.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm sure they'll have one, just like the four federal ministers no doubt had access to the entire Hansard of that debate.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of concerns of a technical nature which I'm going to leave now, but my major concern about this picketing section is that while it meets some legitimate concerns about the widespread use of secondary picketing, which on occasion has not been well handled internally by the labour movement — I acknowledge that — I think that unfortunately sometimes people bring on repressive legislation, and to a certain extent we saw that in this case.

But be that as it may, this legislation goes beyond the concerns that were expressed by many people as a result of the recent forest industry picketing. What it does is to say to a small union that is attempting to successfully conclude a labour dispute: "In order to prevent your employer from continuing to circumvent the strike, as employers often do in the small sector, you are going to have to first of all go to the labour board to get authority for secondary picketing in each and every instance where you want to apply that secondary picketing." So in the classic case of a load of widgets coming out of a struck plant, or an allied plant, which might well be legitimately declared to be a target for secondary picketing by the labour board, the truck will be long gone before the picket line is approved.

That may be the government's intention. This may be what you want to help the employer on his side of the strike, but that's what happens. The effect of it is that you can't exert maximum economic pressure, which is what strikes and lockouts are all about. The more economic pressure you can exert, the quicker the resolution is achieved. If the union can't exert economic pressure on the employer in that case because the employer can continue, one way or another, to produce the goods, you have the inevitable result of lengthened labour disputes and more frequent unresolved labour disputes. We have some labour disputes that are 15 years old and haven't been resolved and never will be — Dominion Motors and many more. The retail wholesale union, which is the union I belonged to for some years, is the one that particularly will be affected because they're actively involved in organizing and in representing small employers. Without the ability to quickly put up a picket line, the employers will have it all over them. I think that in this section that's the major problem. If you're attempting to deal with pulp workers expanding their picket line to include forestry operations or sawmills, that's one thing. But in effect you're saying to small unions that you're taking away whatever economic power they have, which they have largely — not exclusively — through their ability to put up a picket line in a hurry and to move it around. That's now gone without prior approval.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, we made a similar amendment, as the former Minister of Labour reminds me, to allied picketing, and it's working quite well.

We've got a bit of a philosophical difference here, and I think it's come up earlier as well. What the member says might be great industrial relations theory to be taught at labour schools or other places, but what we're saying is that you should have the right to exert that economic pressure on anybody, hurt them as much as you want in order to bring pressure on someone who is the primary target. It doesn't matter whether those people have any interest in the affair. You should be able to shut them down for three days — and they're probably small employers too, if it is a small employer situation — without impunity. I just don't agree with that. I don't think you should be able to use other people as a club to bring someone else in line.

One of my advisers has a sort of a parable about a hockey game. As long as the players confine their fights to the ice, perhaps it can be tolerated in some way, but as soon as they go out and start bashing the fans, then somebody else had better step in. Really, I guess in many ways that's what we're saying. I don't believe that you should have an unlimited club to use on innocent parties in a labour dispute. There may be times when that economic pressure can legitimately be used, but surely there's nothing wrong with having permission to use it first. That's the position we take.

MR. GABELMANN: Let's continue the hockey game analogy, Mr. Chairman. If Dave Langevin takes on Wayne Gretzky, under these rules Dave Semenko has to get prior approval from the referee to intervene on Gretzky's behalf. In the hockey game now, normally Semenko will go in and beat up Langevin.

MR. MICHAEL: That would sure make for a cleaner game.

MR. GABELMANN: It sure wouldn't; that would be the problem. Then we would get into the European style of hockey where they kick each other and use the stick and do all kinds of dirty, illegal things. Right?

The minister's analogy about the fans is not appropriate. What he's saying to Dave Semenko is: "You get prior approval from the referee to go in and beat up Dave Langevin.

[10:30]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: They don't have fights in baseball.

[ Page 4800 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Well, you started the hockey analogy; I just wanted to continue it. It's a serious matter. Levity is fine, and my colleagues think I'm never humorous or light enough. It is a serious matter, though, Mr. Chairman, and one that I know again tilts the balance overwhelmingly against the unions in the collective bargaining process and in their attempts to resolve disputes. We shouldn't be surprised at the kind of response you saw yesterday in Vancouver, when Code amendments include at least three or four really serious matters upsetting the balance. I'm not arguing that the status quo is perfect, but this requirement for prior approval....

I said yesterday that I don't like predicting, because sometimes you predict and then it comes true, but I think I know enough about the business to know that that prior approval will be violated, and it will be violated by necessity. There is no point in going for approval to stop a truck from delivering some goods that end up breaking your strike if, by the time you get the approval, the truck has finished its delivery. So what people will inevitably do is picket that place without approval, and that's not what we want in a labour code. We want there to be a code that applies fairly and is perceived to apply fairly, and not an invitation to break the law. For the most part people don't want to be lawbreakers, trade unionists don't want to be lawbreakers, but the government is saying: "We are going to force you to be lawbreakers." The alternative is that you can't prosecute your strike with the same effect that the employer is able to prosecute the lockout.

So while these sections deal with the political problem that is perceived by the government, they go that extra step, which in my view is totally wrong. Time will demonstrate the validity of our respective positions. There is no doubt at all in my mind that time will demonstrate that that particular aspect will have to be reversed.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the member for North Island. I happen to have been involved as an innocent bystander in a secondary-picketing circumstance that I thought was completely and totally offensive to me and the other several hundred people who were there as well, one involving a large union and a large corporation fighting each other on somebody else's territory. As I said earlier, I really think that labour disputes involving unions and management should be restricted to those people who are directly involved, and not involve anybody else. I would support this section wholeheartedly, because I feel that whether the unions and the companies are large or small, they are probably of equal strength in almost every circumstance and can quite adequately solve their problems without involving innocent parties.

MS. BROWN: I just want to set the record straight when that member talks about union and management being of equal strength. This province has a history, going back many years, that there has not been equal strength. I can think of Sandringham Hospital, where those 28 women were up against a large private hospital corporation for years. Certainly they were almost beaten into the ground until legislation was introduced in terms of ensuring their first contract. Windermere hospital, the cancer clinic, all the hospital unions. When you talk about inequality between union and management, the unions involved are mostly women workers. They're usually in weak unions up against very powerful employers, and usually they lose their strikes. Secondary picketing is one thing that I know certainly has been used in the past by a number of them, and one that they would be able to continue using. If it were simply a matter of equals up against each other, we wouldn't need the Code, quite frankly, but that's not the way it happens.

I've refrained from participating in this debate because I thought that our critic was articulating our position very competently. But when the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser), who is the expert on the meaning of words, interjects this new concept of management and union being two equals locked in mortal combat with each other, I just have to say that that is not the fact at all. That has not been the experience with women in the restaurant industry, in the banks, in the department stores and in the hospital industry, which is the reason why they're not organized today. The bank workers are still not organized. The department stores — the same thing. Most women in the restaurant unions, many of whom are immigrants, and running into language difficulties and this kind of thing, can't fight the employer; they're too weak. This is the reason they needed a strong Labour Code. This is why we were upset about the certification section — which I'm not going to reflect on because it's gone — and the decertification section. Certainly secondary picketing for those unions that did exist was one tool they could use that was very vital to them. I think it's unfortunate that the bill, when it is passed, is going to really weaken an already weak group of workers who needed the protection that a good Labour Code could have given them.

MRS. WALLACE: I've been listening very carefully to the debate and the questions my colleague has been asking relative to what does constitute secondary picketing. I thought I understood this section, quite frankly, but as I listen to the minister's answers I'm not sure. So I want to pose about three sets of examples, and get the minister's response: either yes, that's secondary picketing and would require all this, or no, it isn't. Let's assume there are two sawmills, both making the same product, both owned by the same company and both organized by the same trade union. A problem arises in one. Is it secondary picketing if that same union pickets another operation owned and operated by the same employer? Would that require going through this process and getting permission? What's the answer on that?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The member is saying that they're covered by the same collective agreement. There is only one collective agreement, so they are one unit.

MRS. WALLACE: No, I said they were represented by the same trade union, not necessarily the same agreement.

MR. GABELMANN: I'll put that same question in a different way, Mr. Chairman. Let's assume there's a restaurant chain with ten restaurants. One of them is organized and certified. Collective bargaining takes place, it breaks down, and they go on strike. A picket line goes up around that restaurant that has been organized. That's primary picketing — no question. That's legal — no problems. That restaurant chain continues to derive 90 percent of its income from the other nine restaurants, because they're still working. The employees suffer 100 percent loss of income; the employer suffers 10 percent loss. The union recognizes that the employer can go for a long time with 90 percent of its revenue — or more, because some of its customers will probably go to

[ Page 4801 ]

the next restaurant, and it will probably continue with 95 percent of its income. So the union workers, who are suffering 100 percent penalty, decide they want to expand their picketing in order to try to resolve the dispute by bringing the employer back to the bargaining table, which the employer won't want to go to because there is no economic pressure on him, so the union expands its picket line by going to the other restaurants. That's secondary picketing, under these definitions, and can be refused. So too could a boycott campaign. Anyone participating in or advocating a boycott of those other nine restaurants — as I read the changes in their cumulative effect — is also required to go and get approval before instituting that economic boycott.

So the government is saying by these amendments that the workers in that certified restaurant have no economic power. That's what's at the heart of this section. The way to resolve that dispute at that first certified restaurant is to put an equal amount of economic pressure on the employer as exists on the employee. Unless the union has the right to go and picket those other places, they won't have that power.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's right, and I think it should be. Why should a group of employees, who have a collective agreement in place, be able to put another group of employees, who have chosen not to belong to a union, out of work? Why should they have that right, unless the test of the act is met? The test of the Act is quite clear: if it can be proved that the employer is carrying on the primary functions of his business at another site, then that can be ruled by the board — not by the government or by anybody else — to be a secondary site and can be legally picketed.

There is a classic example. Many MLAs in this House receive all kinds of correspondence from a company called Malkin and Pinton. Nine unionized employees in their Prince George operation were on a legal strike and put another 275 non-union employees in sites all over the lower mainland effectively out of work by putting up picket lines around those firms where there was no collective agreement in place. The member thinks that's okay, and they should be allowed to do that. I say it's time somebody started to protect the public interest in this province, and I believe that that's what this section does.

MR. GABELMANN: It does that, sure, but it also denies the right of the employees on strike or the locked-out employees to successfully conclude their negotiations, especially when it's the first contract. Under these rules, a campaign for example, at the present time against Canadian Tire in Victoria would not be legal. If I were to stand outside the Canadian Tire store in Victoria handing out leaflets urging people not to shop at that store because of the strike at Prince George, I wouldn't have that right under these.... The public still has the right to cross that picket line when the struck operation is continuing to work. For the most part this affects that kind of situation where there may well be a picket line put up around a non-union — as I cited earlier — restaurant or Canadian Tire store. The public still has the right if they so choose. Jack London had a nice description for people who do it, but if they want to go across the picket line they can. The public right isn't affected. The rights of those struck employees sure are. You say to people in a first contract situation in those areas: "You may as well forget even bothering to organize." You can never successfully conclude a first collective agreement unless one is imposed under section 70 of the Code, and when does that ever happen? Should it happen is another question, but when does it ever happen?

[10:45]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We're obviously not going to agree on this section and what it does. I accept that the member has some very earnestly held opinions on it, and I don't share them.

On the matter of whether or not a person could counsel an economic boycott, that's covered under section 84 of the Code, dealing with information. It is quite clear that anybody at any time, as long as what they do is not constituted as picketing under the act, can hand out pamphlets and can advise people. Picketing only restricts the site. They can hand out pamphlets saying: "Don't eat Canadian tires," or whatever, and that would be quite legitimate, in my opinion. They could have someone standing there saying: "Everyone who works in here is a scab." I would consider that to be legal under the Code.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't think there is any doubt that I could hand out a pamphlet here to every member saying: "Don't shop at Canadian Tire." There's no problem about that. But I'm not sure any longer that I can stand outside the front door of the Canadian Tire store in Victoria with a sign on my back saying: "Canadian Tire on strike," and hand out literature urging people not to....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Any place, any time.

MR. GABELMANN: We'll see how the picketing section is interpreted. I have some grave concerns about that. When is an information line a picket line? This is a gray area. I think this amended wording leads to a situation where that kind of thing will be what has been perceived to be an information line or an economic boycott. Section 84 will no longer have the same impact as a result of the changes to 85. We've made the case.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Don't forget that an employer can go to the board at any time over any matter, I'm sure, and ask for the earth. The board may decide that it's not a matter that they should hear, or that the employer is mistreating the board. There's always that opportunity. It's the board that will make the interpretations, and they'll have to interpret from the words they've got in the legislation. I'm sure that they'll continue to look at past practice as well as it relates to the new words. That can happen. Any employer can go at any time to the board and say that they don't like what is happening in terms of an informational picket line, and then the board has the duty to make a judgment on whatever it is that is before it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask again for some clarification about this. I use the example of the dispute that took place at the Windermere private hospital when the nurses' aides were trying to negotiate their first contract; as the minister knows, it took them about four years to do it. The Windermere hospital is a part of a series of 24 long-term care facilities right across the United States and Canada which is owned and operated by Trizec, whose main function is real estate. Trizec is a billion-dollar Ontario real estate development company; it's the second largest in Canada. Running

[ Page 4802 ]

private hospitals and long-term care facilities is not their primary job. For example, in British Columbia they own the Lougheed Mall and the Brentwood Mall. Could those nurses' aides, under this legislation as it is now, put a picket line around the Brentwood Mall or the Lougheed Mall? Even though they were negotiating a first contract at a private hospital, a long-term care facility, the primary job of the owners of that hospital is not running long-term care facilities; it is real estate. Would that still be considered primary or secondary picketing, bearing in mind that the owners are running the long-term care facility as a secondary job?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, if you allowed that you would have chaos — industrial chaos and economic chaos. There are lots of people who own lots of different businesses. If the kind of thing that the member is suggesting was allowed, you would have no way of managing the system.

MS. BROWN: It says the "primary place of business." The primary place of business is not the hospital. The hospital is just a little something that they have on the side. Their primary office is located in one of those malls.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the employer is the person whose name appears on the collective agreement. That's who the dispute is with.

MS. BROWN: And that disputed employee is an employer of Trizec Corp. and running a hospital is not their primary function. As this act is written now, they presumably could put up a picket line around Brentwood Mall or Lougheed Mall, which is where they have their office.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, if the company had its head office at Lougheed Mall — I've already answered the question of the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) — yes, that head office could be picketed.

MS. BROWN: Okay.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It has been the past practice of the board that the mall cannot be picketed, but the head office of the company can be picketed.

A prime example is the liquor stores. When BCGEU employees went on strike and the liquor stores were closed down, picket lines were set up around many malls in British Columbia effectively closing down the entire mall — Safeway, shoe store, the whole thing. The board ruled under current provisions of the Code that that was not allowed. Only the area in which the dispute was held could be picketed, and so the liquor store could be picketed. What you're saying, though, is that if the head office is there, yes, the head office can be picketed.

MS. BROWN: Presumably, Mr. Chairman, because they own the malls, they could apply to the Labour Relations Board for permission to picket all of the malls. They own the malls; they built them, they're theirs. They don't just own the head office.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, they can apply, if they want, but I would be very surprised if the board allowed the picketing under the current provisions or the new provisions of the Code. Take the steelworkers of Trail, who have a contract dispute with Cominco. Should they be allowed to shut down the CPR transcontinental railway? Should they be able to shut down the Canada Place development because Marathon Realty has been involved in it? You just can't allow that kind of chaos to exist in the community. You've got to narrow it in some ways. I'm sure the board would say that that's not allowed under any circumstances, whether under the new section or the old one.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Minister, I suppose the best way to describe this question is to give a bit of background or perhaps develop a scenario. Suppose the office workers' union was bargaining with the IWA regional council, and one of their demands was the abolition of company unions — they didn't like the idea that some local unions in B.C. had stenographers who were members of the IWA — and the office workers said: "Look, we want to abolish company unions. We insist that all employees in local unions who are stenographers belong to the Office and Technical Employees' Union." Suppose that developed into a strike at the regional council level in Vancouver, which is owned and controlled by the 16 local unions. Would this legislation permit those girls and guys in Vancouver to go out to the 16 local unions, the ones that require their stenographers to become members of the IWA, and picket those local union offices without the permission of the board?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Again, Mr. Chairman, I don't really know. It would be up to the board to put the test. The test is in the act. The test is simply whether or not the primary employer is having work carried on at a secondary site which is essential for the operation of his business. If that test could be proven, I would assume that secondary picketing would be allowed; if the test couldn't be proven, then it wouldn't.

Sections 16 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

[11:00]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 24

[ Page 4803 ]

NAYS — 15

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 28, Labour Code Amendment Act, 1984, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 24

NAYS — 16

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 27, Mr. Speaker.

EDUCATION STATUTES (FISCAL YEAR)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

The House in committee on Bill 27; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. ROSE: I think this bill amounts more or less to a housekeeping arrangement or rearrangement. I have some reservations about it, but I indicated earlier in second reading that I didn't have any deep or profound ones. But I would like the opportunity to make some general remarks about the bill. I'd like some advice on the proper stage at which to do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you continue, please.

MR. ROSE: I would just like to say a few things about the bill. First of all, I agree with the minister that it's a long overdue reform and that it's been welcomed, especially by the school boards. It will allow them to strike a budget now for the entire school year, because it makes the fiscal year consonant with the school year. I think that's a welcome change.

Some of the amendments that are coming up, though, I think, instead of simplifying things for some people, especially the school teachers in their bargaining, will tend to make it a little bit more difficult for them. I would like to give some examples of that. Of course, I and my party don't believe in the compulsory arbitration principle. We never have. We've accepted it. It's been in there for at least 20 years. We know that, but we don't like it very much. We feel that there should be full collective bargaining for teachers — with a legitimate timetable, though, for compulsory arbitration, should there be a breakdown. What we've got here now is a legislated timetable for reaching a settlement. So the problem is that there is often little incentive — for either the teachers, in some cases, or the boards — to settle by collective bargaining.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I was invited to proceed under this sort of umbrella — we'll call it the title. It doesn't particularly matter to me. But I want to make these remarks. When we come to the places where we're amending — I understand the minister is going to introduce some amendments — I can be more particular and less general at that stage. But I would like to say some general things here.

I think we should probably look into greater opportunities to establish these salary arrangements by collective bargaining. With the budget now being imposed by the central authority, I don't know what bargaining can take place, anyway. Certainly not very much in the way of salary bargaining, unless you're bargaining your way down instead of bargaining your way up.

So that's one point I would like to make. The other thing is that there's still no protection for school boards against an arbitrary cut or an arbitrary decision inflicted upon the boards or the school districts by a minister, such as when this minister's predecessor marched in with the interim financing act in the middle of the year. We know we're on a three-year plan now — steadily down for three years, but we're aware of that.

The other thing is that — we can get to this in greater detail a little later on — the salary settlements.... The amendments now contemplated tend to lock the budget some six weeks perhaps in advance of when the arbitration process ends. At the moment, settlements are handed down January 1 and budgets are finalized February 15. In this case, it's going to be the reverse. In other words, you finalize your budget and then arrange your salary settlements some six weeks later. That doesn't make much sense to me or to us. What happens is that you put the cart before the horse. Once you've settled your budget, how then can you arrange for anything sort of elastic in your salary settlements? If you do get a salary settlement that perhaps is less than those anticipated in the budget, what do you do with the surplus? Are you going to be criticized for being poor budgeters because you've got a huge surplus? It doesn't matter when you start to bargain. It's when you stop bargaining that counts; because once that budget is frozen there's very little room for bargaining.

[ Page 4804 ]

Those are my general remarks. When we get to the various sections perhaps I'll have a bit more to say.

[11:15]

Sections 1 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 15 there's an amendment.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

On section 16.

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

On the amendment.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I think we're going through this pretty rapidly; a person has to be pretty fast on his feet in order to follow all this. It might be suggested that maybe I should have read it more carefully earlier, but when the minister brings in an amendment, the House would welcome an opportunity to hear him explain the nature of and reason for his amendment. I don't think he needs to lapse into a soliloquy or to filibuster his own bill, but I would like the minister to assure the House that he actually knows what's in these amendments, and to explain them to us.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: All of the amendments that we are involved with now are to do with a few dates. What happened is that after we introduced the bill, the school trustees and teachers expressed a concern with respect to notice to arbitrate, to when they went into conciliation and into arbitration, and to when the final arbitration report must be submitted. What we have done, at the request of the contacts through the BCTF who made this request, and through the BCSTA who also made it, is to advance the dates. The real reason coming from them was that they would like, if at all possible, to conclude arbitration while the teachers are still teaching; in other words, before the school year concludes. That's the reason why the date, for example, of.... They must go to arbitration on May 1 if they cannot secure an agreement. The arbitration award must be made on May 31 and reported June 7.

One of the comments made by the member for Coquitlam-Moody is that the negotiations are collapsed from six to four weeks. It must be remembered that as the act is presently written negotiations for arbitration go from November 15 to December 31, but in there we have a two-week period for the Christmas holiday. So they said, "All right, if that be the case we would like it collapsed at the other end," and that's exactly what we're doing — from May 1 to May 31. That resolves that problem. I understand, through their communications with me as well as with the ministry, that they are most satisfied with the proposed amendment.

Yes, it is true with respect to budgets having to be filed on March 15 with the Ministry of Education, but the validating bylaw passed by the school board is on May 1. All local teachers' associations and school districts have the opportunity to negotiate their agreement prior to either serving notice of arbitration or going to conciliation or arbitration. The date of May 1 is very important, because at that time the board must validate its budget, which is to be approved by the ministry after being submitted on March 15. In every school budget in all 75 districts there is always some give and take on the budget which is submitted on the 15th. Hence that period of time from March 15 until it goes back to the board. That is the basic reason why there was a change.

MR. ROSE: I'd like the minister to clarify that and amplify it. Is he saying to us that the budgets are really not finalized on the date suggested, March 15, but could be subject to amendment after that, should negotiations continue for either the support staff or the teaching staff?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Right now it is not any different. The budgets must be submitted on February 15; they are not validated by bylaw in the school district until some time — I can't call the exact date, but it's some weeks later — before the school board passes the bylaw adopting the budget. This is exactly the same, only the dates are somewhat changed. The reason for the dates being changed is to accommodate dovetailing the fiscal year with the school year.

MR. ROSE: I don't have any problem with that, Mr. Chairman. That's fine; I don't object to that at all. What I'm objecting to is what I tried to outline earlier, and that is that at present settlements are handed down on January 1, and budgets are finalized on February 15. Right? That's what we have now. You brought in an amendment — actually two; you've amended your amendment — but right now we have a situation in which the budgets have to be finalized March 15, and yet the salary settlements are not finalized until May 31, or, under some conditions, even June 7. The objection that has been expressed by some people, including legislative representatives of the school teachers — the BCTF — is that you've taken away the incentive of the employer to make a settlement, because he can finalize his budget and then some six weeks later, when the salary negotiations are legislatively required to come to an end, they can say: "Well, we're sorry, we don't have any money." So we'll work on Mr. Peck's ability-to-pay principle, and he has ruled in favour of the public employer on the-ability-to-pay argument, which a lot of people disagree with. But that is the major concern. If the minister can assure the House that the March 15 budget deadline is sufficiently elastic — and he can talk about validating as much as he likes — to permit an adjusted budget as a result of a salary settlement, then the objections would be met.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the local teachers' association and school board have an opportunity to voluntarily enter into an agreement, if they so wish, at any time during the year, and certainly before March 15. I think there is some realism with respect to bargaining, because prior to this the salaries would be negotiated, and whatever they were, they would be picked up by the school district. Mind you, it would have to go through the CSP commissioner. It seems to me there is an incentive for both

[ Page 4805 ]

parties to resolve their differences, because under compulsory arbitration the employer has no idea of what's coming down the pike and neither does the employee. So as far as incentive is concerned, I think it cuts both ways, and it's in their interest to try to at least bargain within the scope of the funding which is pretty well available to the school district.

One of these years school districts will have access to the residential property base as a line of revenue; but under the sunset provision that doesn't occur until after 1986. It depends on the board. Recognizing that the board has some degree of autonomy — although a bit eroded under the present financial arrangement — boards will obviously, like all employers, make provision for any increase, if they have the ability to pay that increase. That's not unheard of, and I think the same thing applies here. If, in fact, a budget or an arbitrated award comes down — let's say, on June 7; they've gone right to the end — and that arbitrated award makes a demand upon the budget which exceeds the budget validated on May 1, I think both the employer and the employees, the school board and the teachers, then know that there are going to be certain cuts required. There's nothing wrong with them being aware of what the impact of a settlement will be if it is in excess of what the board has available to it to meet its obligations for the fiscal year.

As for elasticity after March 15, with every district there are problems which will come up. The object of this game, and the reason for March 15 — for that next six weeks — is to make sure that everything is covered. Some things may not be covered, but that relationship is the same between any employer and employees. I think there are other factors that come into play.

MR. ROSE: I think I heard the minister say that the budgets would be determined by March 15 and would be validated May 1, yet the arbitration settlements need not be concluded until May 31, one month later, or, under some conditions, by the chairman of the arbitration commission by June 7. So here we have four weeks after a validated budget in which bargaining or arbitration presumably can take place. It is our contention that this shifts the balance in favour of the employer. The employer can simply say: "I'm sorry, we finalized our budget on March 15. We validated it on May 1" — according to the minister. What are we doing piddling around until May 31? The game is over. As for the business of it being permissive, certainly we could start to bargain earlier. But I think that anyone who has had anything to do with negotiations knows that they tend to drag on and on. In some industries work goes on for years without a settlement. I think that the pulp industry was an example, That is the big objection that we have to these dates: not that you shift the fiscal framework but that you shift the balance in favour of the employer by finalizing a budget, then the employer turns around and says "I'm sorry, guys, we haven't got any money, and we don't have the ability to pay." So what on earth is that extra month doing in there anyway? What is it for?

[11:30]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With all due respect, I'd like to point out that the incentive on behalf of the employer to enter into an acceptable contract with the teachers is always there. I'll tell you what happens. The school board has an operation to run. It's got students to serve. It must provide for what it thinks is going to be an acceptable arrangement. If it doesn't it goes right into the lap of the arbitrator, because if the award comes down and then is approved by the compensation stabilization office, the school district is perhaps going to have some difficulty in serving the students, because they are not going to have enough money for everything they want. It's in the interests of the school district as an employer to attempt to work out some arrangement. That is not unheard of. Not only that, but I don't think it tips the balance at all. It seems to me it makes it equal, because what is happening in here is that the employee knows the limitations of the board — for whatever reason those limitations are. I might also add in conclusion that this amendment was agreed to and the information passed on to me by the BCTF as well as the BCSTA when I talked to them.

MR. ROSE: The minister knows about these things in an abstract way because of his experience as a former Minister of Labour and also a lawyer. But I lived through these things. I lived in the sunny Okanagan where they felt it was worth at least $1,000 a year less — off your salary — for the sunshine. In the years that I worked in Oliver and later in Kelowna — I'm not sure about Oliver — it seemed to me that we went to arbitration nearly every year. I don't see how, if it was such a great advantage for the boards to settle early, somehow the Kelowna board missed this opportunity and didn't understand what the minister is telling us. I lived through very bitter times in which there was a strong disagreement on salary matters between the board and the teachers. Because we were in the Okanagan, anywhere up to $1,000 a year less.... They were paid less in those days; I suppose the maximum then would have been $5,000 or $6,000. That's the way they operated. It cost us money because we had to hire lawyers, it cost them money, but it went to arbitration every year. I don't see how that's different. I don't see how, if the boards didn't want to pay that money then, this has changed anything, and now it's going to be to their advantage to settle earlier. They even went so far in those days.... One of their little stunts was to publish the name of every teacher and their salaries in the newspaper as part of their bargaining ploy. They lost about 50 percent of their teachers that year, including me, but it seemed that they felt it was worth it. I cite this as a horror story but also as an example of where it was no advantage, apparently, for boards to settle soon.

MS. SANFORD: I have a quick question for the minister related to the period for conciliation, which I understand was four weeks under the old bill and is still four weeks. Is that correct? Okay. I wonder why the minister has decided to retain that four-week period. Is there evidence that the conciliation procedures are effective during that four-week period? After the first two weeks, are there any more conciliations? If so, why is it necessary to retain the four weeks rather than shortening that period of time? What are the advantages of keeping it at four?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the member raises a valid point. Practice in the past would indicate that the appointment of conciliators is really an exercise, and nothing more than that. It's unfortunate, because it seems to me that as a result of these changes it may have a new thrust. The inherent value within the appointment of a conciliator may now bear some fruit. That's all I'm getting at. It's something that there was never any strong representation made to me about. If it's not broken, they seem to feel in the field, don't fix it. That was the general feeling I had. I

[ Page 4806 ]

concede to the member's point that conciliation in the past is an exercise which has not been that great. It may, however, have some value now. One of the views expressed by the BCTF, as relayed to me, was that they try to close their negotiations and come to a settlement before the school year ends, and that maybe they would take full advantage now of the conciliation opportunity.

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

On section 17.

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

On the amendment.

MR. ROSE: I take it that the minister, after we agreed that he would explain the amendments, feels that he did that, in answer to my colleague's question.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: If there's some concern on this.... If you look under section 17, it was the appointing of a conciliator. So it was covered, and I didn't think there was....

MR. ROSE: That's what I said. I assumed that that was the case.

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

On section 18.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

On section 19.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 19 as amended approved.

Sections 20 to 31 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, the committee on Bill 27 rises and reports the bill complete with amendments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I beg to move that the bill, with leave, be now read a third time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question would be: when shall the bill be reported as amended?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With leave, now.

MR. HOWARD: No, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I don't think you need leave to make the report. The only requirement for leave would be to give the bill third reading now, and I think that such a complex set of amendments would take some time to look at in conjunction with the bill as it originally stood. Perhaps leave should not be given in that circumstance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave would be required because the House cannot normally consider the bill until it is reprinted, and there are amendments. So the question is: when shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With leave, now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

MR. HOWARD: This is for reporting it, but not for third reading?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. HOWARD: No problem.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The next sitting....

MS. SANFORD: After today!

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY
(LAND TRANSFER) ACT, 1984

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

[ Page 4807 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, does the acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, who is responsible for B.C. Hydro, know whether or not this land has yet been rezoned from industrial to residential?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: As far as I know it has not, yet. I'll certainly check that to make sure, but I referred back to the notes in Hansard from the minister, and I have no other indication from any of the other notes.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, my understanding was that it had, at the time I asked the question, and he said no, it hadn't.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the bill be reported complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair

Bill 25, Hydro and Power Authority (Land Transfer) Act, 1984, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

HOSPITALS AMALGAMATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 26; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

[11:45]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 26, Hospitals Amalgamation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

The House in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. COCKE: I note that doctors of chiropractic are now being allowed to use a series of "doctor": doctor of chiropractic or chiropractic doctor or.... However, it excludes the right for them to use just straight "doctor." Incidentally, I'm not opposed to their not being allowed to use the direct title "doctor" without the modification. I'm wondering, what is the genesis of this particular amendment to the Chiropractors Act?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It is the opinion of the government and myself that those people who have qualified academically in the health sciences field, where the degree is that of doctor of their specialty, should be in the position of using that title in conjunction with their specialty. At the present time it is specifically prohibited by the Medical Practitioners Act, and in my opinion there were a couple of pretty silly court cases over this where a couple of chiropractors in the province were charged for using the title "doctor": Doctor So-and-so, Chiropractor. They were successful in their actions simply because the other legislation prohibited it. We have been requested by the chiropractors' association and by other professional associations to permit them to use the same title as is common across Canada and in most of the United States. I think it is quite proper that a person who qualifies for the degree should be able to make use of the title "Doctor" with reference to their specialty. I think it's been long in coming, and I think it's quite proper that it's before us now.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MRS. DAILLY: Section 2 is the Health Emergency Act section, and it seems pretty clear that it's going to delete the requirement that the Emergency Health Services Commission annual report be reported to this Legislature. I just wanted to express a concern to the minister and ask why he's doing this. We have a concern that once you start removing the reporting of a commission or body to this Legislature, it's removing some of the independence of that particular body. Autonomous power is now given to the Minister of Health for the reporting. Why we perhaps sound a little paranoiac about this is because we recall that the same procedure took place with the Alcohol and Drug Commission. One of the first steps was to remove its reporting to the Legislature, and following that came the demise of the Alcohol and Drug Commission. I am wondering why this was done.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The specific reason is that the Emergency Health Services Commission's report is included within the Ministry of Health report now, and we intend to continue including it within the report rather than have an independent report submitted to the House. It is included within the annual report of the Ministry of Health as part of the Ministry of Health report. This amendment would no longer make it necessary for a separate report to be tabled in the House. It will be included in the ministry's report.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

[ Page 4808 ]

MRS. DAILLY: We welcome this change. In fact I know that members on this side of the House spoke at the time that the last change was made that we did not feel it was complete enough. Of course, now we have it improved so that either spouse can apply to change their surname as long as the applicant spouse gives consent. This is something which I know was given considerable attention by members on this side of the House. Previously, married women could only change their surname to their maiden name with the spouse's consent; this allows either spouse to have individual choice in their surname. It still remains, however, that one must first obtain the permission of the spouse. I suppose the next thing we want to discuss with the minister is, why does either spouse have to have permission? Also, if a married man registers a change of surname, automatically the change is also made for his wife unless she has elected for a change of surname herself; yet a wife's change of surname doesn't automatically change the husband's surname. This is a paternalistic attitude, and it should be deleted so that changes in the surname apply only to the individual applying for the name.

I know there are others who want to comment on this, particularly the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who spoke on this whole matter at some length when it came up before. But before she takes her place, I have one other question for the minister.

This is about a child. I notice there is no change at all in the rights to change a child's name. There could, I suppose, be a case where a parent wished to have an unlimited right in giving a child a name. Perhaps a mother might want to give the grandfather's or grandmother's surname. Perhaps the minister has had representations on this; I don't know. Frankly, I just recently had it presented it to me, so I must admit that I haven't given it a great deal of thought. I wonder if the minister sees any advantage to giving this opportunity to a child as well. Maybe we could have a discussion on that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd be very pleased to receive any submissions from any member or interested parties with respect to future modification of the Change of Name Act, and have the opportunity of discussing it to see whether it is a practical suggestion.

I would think, Mr. Chairman, the director of vital statistics and the persons responsible for this probably received every conceivable form of request with respect to names, modification of names, and so on. I think the director of vital statistics and the government have some responsibility to try to establish an orderly method of identifying people by name and keeping such records as may be necessary. We really have had virtually every request one could think of with respect to modifying names.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the amendments which have been put forward today are a significant advancement in what has been considered to be an inequitable situation with respect to the names. The amendment may not resolve all of the problems or all of the considerations, but I believe it's an important advancement, at least from what was previously there. I'm quite prepared to look at any future modifications which may be needed to resolve some of the identifiable inequities which in the minds of some could still be there. I think by today's amendment we have indicated that we are quite prepared to listen to and accept responsible arguments which have been put forward. So we can always continue to modify, once the case is made.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I too want to say how pleased I am at this decision to open this piece of legislation and modify it once again. The struggle to get the Change of Name Act brought into the twenty-first century actually started in 1972, so you can see how slowly the wheels of justice do grind. We're getting there, but we're still — as my colleague for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) pointed out — not quite there yet.

For example, on April 30 I received a letter from a woman who wanted to use her surname as well as her husband's surname, and I'm wondering if the minister could tell me whether under this section that is now possible. She didn't want to hyphenate it; she just wanted to have two surnames. I want to know whether that is possible now.

I realize that I'm going on to section 6 when I mention that I too am surprised about the decision not to permit a woman to change her surname without first getting the permission of her husband. I want to say that this is incredibly difficult. I have mail going back to 1979 from women who have been separated for a long period of time but are not divorced and would like to use another name. They find that they have to either get permission or.... I notice section 5, which said it had to be put in the Gazette, has gone, and I'm really pleased about that. That's no longer necessary. But maybe the minister could explain why it's still necessary to get the permission of a husband you're no longer living with — or have lived with for a while — to change your name.

The other thing was the question my colleague raised about naming the children, which I think we can make some submissions to.

Does it still cost $80 if you want to file a change of name? I don't know whether that's still in effect or not.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's the cost of advertising; it has to be put into the Gazette.

MS; BROWN: Okay. But now that you no longer have to use the Gazette, I'm wondering whether it's still going to cost $80 to have it done. Can the name a woman places on a marriage certificate at the time of her marriage still be any name she chooses to use? Has that been affected in any way by this act? If the minister would answer those two questions, I will close by once again saying that I really appreciate that this 12-year battle seems to be finally drawing to a close.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I don't know whether the $80 still applies; I would have to check that out.

My understanding is that a woman upon getting married can use whatever legal name she may have and retain that. That doesn't modify that, provided it's her legal name.

The other question the member asked.... Again, I would have to speak to our director of vital statistics with respect to the need for permission, to see if there is some legal reason for that. I don't think it is meant to be paternalistic, but I will get an explanation for it.

I would say to the members that I am quite interested in the area of vital statistics, particularly with reference to names and so on, and I would be most pleased to have any submissions come forward, to speak with the director to get his opinion, and to do a reasonable search across the country to see who else has been making modifications, because we do believe there should be some consistency. We are quite prepared to at least advance to the twentieth century, if not the twenty-first.

[ Page 4809 ]

[12:00]

MS. BROWN: Just very quickly, to the minister: I would like to recommend both Manitoba and Ontario, which have recently dealt with their acts, and Ontario, specifically, as affecting the naming of children and single parents' right to name their children.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

27 The Hon. J. H. Heinrich to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 27) intituled Education Statutes (Fiscal Year) Amendment Act, 1984 to amend as follows:

SECTION 15, by deleting the proposed section 15 and substituting the following:

"15. Section 133 is amended

" (a) in subsection (1) by striking out 'August 15' and substituting 'February 1', and

" (b) in subsection (3) by striking out 'September 25' and substituting 'March 5'. "

SECTION 16, by deleting the proposed paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of section 16 and substituting the following:

"(b) by adding the following subsection:

"(1.1) Where an agreement between a board and an association is due to expire

(a) during the transitional period of January 1, 1985 to June 30, 1985, or

(b) in any fiscal year commencing with the fiscal year 1985/86, the board or an association may

(c) in respect of the agreement that expires during the transitional period, on or before March 1, 1985, or

(d) in respect of an agreement that expires in the 1985/86 fiscal year or any subsequent fiscal year, on or before March I of the fiscal year that the agreement expires,

serve the other with a written notice of its desire to negotiate or continue an agreement respecting salaries and bonuses or salary and bonus schedules for the next fiscal year or for the next fiscal year and one or more subsequent fiscal years.,

"(c) in subsection (2) by striking out 'September 30' and substituting 'March 10',

"(d) in subsection (3) by striking out 'subsection (1),' and substituting 'subsection (1) or (1. I), and

"(e) in subsection (4) by striking out 'October 14' and substituting 'March 30'."

SECTION 17, by deleting the proposed section 17 and substituting the following:

"17. Section 135 (1) is amended by striking out 'October 15' and substituting 'March 31'. "

SECTION 18, by deleting the proposed section 18 and substituting the following:

"18. Section 136 is amended

"(a) in subsection (1) by striking out 'November 15, ' and substituting 'May 1,',

"(b) in subsection (3) (a) by striking out 'November 22,' and substituting 'May 8, ', and

"(c) in subsection (3) (b) by striking out 'December 7, ' and substituting 'May 15, '."

[ Page 4810 ]

SECTION 19, by deleting the proposed section 19 and substituting the following:

"19. Section 137 is amended

"(a) in subsection (1) by striking out 'January 1, ' and substituting 'May 31, ', and

"(b) in subsection (2) by striking out 'before January 1, the chairman alone shall make an award on or before January 5 of the following year,' and substituting 'before May 31, the chairman shall make an award on or before June 7 of that year,'."