[ Page 5091 ]

CONTENTS

Reading and Receiving Petitions –– 5091

Orders of the Day

Expo 86 Corporation Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 44). Committee stage.

On section 7 –– 5091

Mr. Williams

Mr. MacWilliam

Third reading –– 5092

Financial Information Act (Bill 36). Committee stage.

On section 2 –– 5092

Mr. Stupich

On section 4 –– 5092

Mr. Stupich

On section 5 –– 5092

Mr. Stupich

On section 7 –– 5093

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Third reading –– 5094

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 41). Committee stage.

On section 3 –– 5094

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Division

Third reading –– 5096

Public Service Act (Bill 35). Committee stage.

On section 2 –– 5097

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Davis

Mr. Gabelmann

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1985

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Reading and Receiving Petitions

CLERK ASSISTANT: In the matter of the petition presented to the House on February 20, 1985, by the hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), it is reported, pursuant to standing order 73(6), that granting of the prayer of the petition would involve an expenditure of public money, for which provision would have to be made in the estimates. Accordingly, the said petition is irregular — Speakers' Decisions, volume 1, page 112.

All of which is respectfully submitted. Ian M. Home QC, Clerk of the House.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 44, Mr. Speaker.

EXPO 86 CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 44; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 7.

MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the Expo budget, it's my understanding that there's an estimate of $30 million for decommissioning the site — in terms of dollars. Maybe the minister could comment on the adequacy of that amount and the relatively short time between the end of Expo and B.C. Place picking up the land again. I think it's a two-month period between Expo continuing to hold the lease with respect to the land and reversion to B.C. Place, which seems like a fairly tight schedule 1n terms of dealing with decommissioning the site. It would appear that the costs of decommissioning other expositions has indeed been significantly higher than that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think the nature of the foreign pavilions, which comprise most of the buildings on the site — they are modular-type construction, are reusable and are designed to be taken down quickly — probably accounts for the time-frame. As to the amount of the budget — the $30 million — I don't recall that figure offhand. If the member says it's $30 million, I take his word for that. We are just going by what the engineers and experts tell us, that that will be the cost and the time-frame. I must remind him though that all the services that are in the ground — the piling and decking — will of course remain, as will three of the buildings: the B.C. pavilion, the geodesic dome and the CPR roundhouse, which is a heritage building. The corporations must dismantle their own pavilions — or whoever the government designates is responsible for taking down the modular pavilions. They are quite easily knocked down and transported.

I should at this time respond to a couple of questions posed late yesterday by the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam). One has to do with section 7, which we were on, and the fact that it says: "one year after the end of Expo." I think the member, with all due respect, is misinterpreting the one year. What it is saying is that the management of Expo, the board. must report the financial status of the fair to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council within one year of the windup of the fair. so it's not a case of, as I think he put it…. I can't find his remarks, but whatever the status of the fair at that time, they must come back to the L-G within that one-year period.

Then he jumped back to section 6 regarding remuneration. That clause was put in there to ensure that no person on the board, save the president of the corporation, who we put on there specifically, can work for the corporation and be a member of the board. So there is no thought or intent of remunerating anyone. It's to prevent someone from sitting on the board and being an employee of the corporation.

The other remark was about lottery funds, I think the member knows that lottery funds other than 6-49 have not been diverted to Expo. Lotto 6-49 was brought into being to fund Expo. The other lottery funds have nothing to do with it. I just want to make that point clear. Lottery grants per se have not been affected because of moneys going into Expo.

MR. MacWILLIAM: In response to the minister's comments, Mr. Chairman. with regard to lottery moneys other than those of 6-49 not going into Expo, when a senior citizens' society up in the North Okanagan asked to receive lottery funds in a request for construction moneys available, it was informed — and I don't know who the informant was; I don't have the material here — that there was virtually no money available for them, because that money had been tied up and earmarked for Expo. So the minister's response to that question leaves standing the question as to why that comment was made in the first place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That subject, although the minister has broached it and the member has replied, might be more appropriate in another minister's estimates or while dealing with other legislation.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would just respond very briefly, Mr. Chairman, that if that is the case, then someone has misinformed someone. Lottery funds are dispensed from the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary, and I would suggest that the member verify those remarks and whence they came through the Provincial Secretary.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

[10:15]

On section 9.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, to reiterate an earlier concern with regard to — I'm just trying to read here, and it's a little difficult at that distance: "…a person designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or a person authorized in writing…shall be the local assistant with respect to the exposition site." The concern in both this

[ Page 5092 ]

section and sections yet coming is that we would like assurances by the minister that persons so designated by order of the Lieutenant-Governor would, in fact, be persons who are fully qualified to handle the responsibilities of those positions.

The reason I bring that up is in order to guard against the enactment of responsibilities upon people who do not have full qualifications. I think if the minister can assure us that those individuals charged with the responsibility for assuring building and fire codes, etc., will be fully qualified, I can't see too much problem with these sections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, as I said in second reading of the bill and will reiterate today, we have every intention of maintaining the highest standards, of safety. It behooves us to have the highest standards there, and we are just as concerned about it, if not more so, than the member of the opposition. So I can assure him and all British Columbians that people who are designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to carry out these supervisory functions will be the most highly qualified people we can find. As I said earlier, they will probably be the — and I say "probably" — the provincial fire marshal and a health inspector designated by the Minister of Health. The workers' compensation rules apply as they do on any other construction site. I want to reassure that member and everyone else that safety is a paramount concern of ours.

Sections 9 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair,

Bill 44, Expo 86 Corporation Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 36,

FINANCIAL INFORMATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 36; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, the usefulness of this section will depend on the limits set by the minister. With reference to 2(1)(f), I wonder whether the minister can tell me if he has any idea at all at what level he might set that. I know it can be changed the day after, but I'd just like some guidance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With reference to 2(1)(f), we envisage in this that a setting of the minimum amount paid to a single supplier would be $5,000. That's what we have in mind. It's presently at $500, and frankly I think that's too low. I think that legislators here want to be able to get to key amounts, and by moving from $500 to $5,000 we think that we're going to reduce the paper flow by about 65 percent. That's the intention; it can be changed, but that is the stated intention in this amending bill.

MR. STUPICH: The minister said the "stated intention"; it's actually not stated, but nevertheless I accept the change and think it's reasonable.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. STUPICH: Once again, perhaps the answer is the same with respect to 4(b) determining the minimum financial limits for the reporting of individual accounts, but I'll just ask the same question. That's the only question on section 4.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is intended that we would move from the $500 to an initial limit of $5,000. That will be recommended to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council . When I said "stated intention" in the earlier sections — this is a companion section, in effect — I meant, by stating it here, that that was my public acknowledgement of the number which I believe to be correct. I hope that over time it won't change very much; I don't think it should. The real problem exists with those very small amounts. We go to $5,000 and then, I think, we are meeting the spirit of the legislation in disclosing key information.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, here it's the directives that make me wonder. I think it's good legislation; I think we're moving forward with this; but it could all be spoiled if the improper directives…. I can appreciate there has to be some direction, but I wonder if the minister can tell us what he has in mind with respect to the availability of this information to the public. That's really what it's all about.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, it is correct that the section is somewhat vague. I would expect that the directives again would reflect the spirit of the Financial Information Act, I can't table or describe for the member the kind of directive that we will use –– I would think that if it is felt by any member of this House that the directive was working against the interests of the bill, that would be raised pretty quickly.

Certainly if the member, as the Finance critic, upon the completion of directives should find that he wants to see a sample directive, then I would be more than happy to provide that to him; but I don't have a directive here. It would be a little presumptuous to prepare one before we have the legislation.

MR. STUPICH: Only a little presumptuous, in view of the circumstances.

[ Page 5093 ]

There was one question I should have asked, perhaps, under 4, and yet it's really a directive, and that is the fee. Maybe that will vary from one organization to another, but do we have any idea at all what kind of fee we're going to be charging?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is under section 4(c), My proposal is that the fee will be $5. That will be recommended to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It is a fee for the provision of copies of the information to be provided. I think there should be some element of charge associated with this, but it should not be such that it would be a disincentive to seek some information. I will recommend $5 to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, but if it later becomes $7.50 or $ 10, I still think…. That's the range that I have in mind, in order to cover just a little bit of the cost of producing the information.

MR. STUPICH: That would include all the information that is envisaged in section 2 — all of the statements, the schedules and everything. Is that the intention?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, that is my intention. Now if someone requests volumes of information, then I think we're going to have to examine that with an element of cost recovery, but more than likely the information requested will be relatively straightforward in printout form and should not be too expensive to produce. A little experience will come, I think, with the passage of this bill, and if we have someone who walks in and says, "I want all the financial information about all these agencies, " then it might cost a little more than $5.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I guess it's at this point that I have to register some concern for the demise of the Crown corporations reporting committee. It would seem that with the passage of this legislation it will now be said that anyone who wants the information can go to the appropriate office and get copies of it. We will take the information as provided by each one of these organizations, rather than have the kind of analysis, inspection and study of these various organizations — at least some of them — that has been going on through the Crown corporations reporting committee. I think that's been a useful exercise. Some very important information became public simply through the actions of that committee, a committee which hasn't met for some time. I think the passage of this section will be the final sweeping under the rug of the Crown corporations reporting committee.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, that may well be the case. But this is a sunshine bill. This is designed to provide access to the kind of financial information which I earnestly believe the people of the province are entitled to. I hear what the member has said.

MR. HOWARD: I just couldn't resist the opportunity to relate to that last comment of the Minister of Finance, and to pay great tribute, Mr. Chairman, as you yourself would do if you had the opportunity to engage in the debate in the chamber, to the former chairman of the Crown corporations committee, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who did an excellent job in participating in and running that committee and ferreting out the secret information that B.C. Rail, B.C. Hydro and ICBC had, arranging for public hearings so the public of this province could see what ICBC and B.C. Hydro were doing to them — full disclosure of information to the public. That great member for Omineca — I'm sorry he isn't here. I thought he would be here participating in this debate himself.

But as the member for Nanaimo (Mr Stupich) pointed out. this is is the final burying of that once-great committee of this chamber, the Crown corporations committee — the final disposition of an opportunity for the general public to know what's going on. Now if people want to discover what's going on, first they have to be an accountant to examine the books that are going to be prepared. Then they have to find their way, say, from Terrace, Prince George or anywhere in Omineca down to the head office of B.C. Hydro in Vancouver or B.C. Rail wherever it happens to be at the moment, and find their way through the labyrinth of those corporations and have a look at the documents that are being made available. It's a hoax, It's just window-dressing to the concept of access of the public to information.

You have to have two things: access and some mechanism of interpreting or analyzing what's presented as a result of the access. The Crown corporations did a good job on it, such a good job that the Premier killed the committee. Maybe the real reason behind it was that it did an excellent job. This is an extremely insignificant substitute for that committee's functions.

HON: MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is back down in the mud again. I knew it would happen sooner or later.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Personal references….

HON. MR. CURTIS: He describes legislation as a hoax, Mr. Chairman; that's a personal reference. He should check with the member for Nanaimo, who came in here in second reading and said that it was good legislation. Which one is right? Would the real opposition finance critic stand up'? Who's right?

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Maybe it's Mackenzie; I don't know. I'm confused. One says it's good, the other says it's a hoax. What the hell is going on over there?

[10:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. CURTIS: I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman. What is going on over there? Has the member for Skeena read the bill? Could I ask that?

I'm having fun this morning. We had good debate. I'm enjoying this very much, except for the fact I wonder if the member for Skeena could tell us: has he read the bill? That's the first question. Secondly, has he consulted with the member for Nanaimo, who has read the bill?

[ Page 5094 ]

MR. HOWARD: There probably isn't any rational way which can satisfy the ignorance of the Minister of Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That will have to be withdrawn.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, no question about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The comment is withdrawn. I'll advise the minister and the member that if we can maintain temperate language, then the debate can carry on in order.

MR. HOWARD: If I were the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), I'd be incensed at what the minister said just now. I stood here and applauded the activities of the member for Omineca on that Crown corporations committee. I drew the comparison between this bill and that committee, and in that comparison this bill is a hoax. Standing by itself in isolation from the really good job that that committee had done, one can look at the bill, as the member for Nanaimo did — and as I did — and just isolate that as one event in the course of time, and say: "Yes, it's a good bill because it does that." But in relation to what the member for Omineca did, steering that committee in the direction of providing full information to the public, yes, the bill's a hoax. There's no question about it. I hope the lack of full understanding on the part of the Minister of Finance…. You must remember, Mr. Chairman, I was dealing with this in the most credible way I can by applauding the member for Omineca. Then the Minister of Finance got incensed that I talked about his colleague that way, and referred to this question of "mud." It indicates where the reality is in that minister's mind about anybody who disagrees with his pure approach to politics in this province. If I were the government House Leader, I'd lay it on that Minister of Finance completely for trying to have this whole debate degenerate into name-calling. It's disgraceful for the Minister of Finance to do that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with some of the remarks of the member for Skeena, and some of the remarks of my colleague the Minister of Finance — commending that excellent member for Omineca on the great work he did on the Crown corporations committee. But I'd also draw to the attention of the hon. member for Skeena that, as a result of his endeavours and those of his colleagues on the Standing Orders and Private Bills Committee, we have amended the rules to include the Crown Corporations Committee as a standing committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're straying a bit from the bill and the clause that's before us.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, we did make that unanimous recommendation. At the same time, and on the insistence of government, we wiped out other references in the standing orders that would have made the Crown corporations committee more functional than it is likely to be at the moment. So it wasn't all beauty.

Section 7 approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 36, Financial Information Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 41, Mr. Speaker.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 41; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, section 3 is the act. Section 3 establishes what the foundation might do, will do, and has to do in some instances. It strikes me that the reason for this stroke of altruism is that, rather than putting the money into a current account, which was non-interest-bearing — because real estate deals are normally very short in duration — the real estate people are now able…. Now the banks have these daily interest account situations, which are relatively new and relatively widespread in the banking system. So what the real estate companies have access to now which they didn't have before is interest. No. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom) shakes his head.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Sure, you'll clear up the confusion. The fact of the matter is, instead of the public — that is, the people who are actually transacting a real estate transaction — having access to the interest on their money, they are giving over that money to this new foundation….

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: It's interesting to have these debates where one stands on his feet and the other sits and does a job. The fact of the matter is….

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: All right, you'll get your chance in just a second.

The fact of the matter is, as I read it and there is interest on the trust funds that will go to this new foundation, and the new foundation will expend those moneys that they make for the betterment of the real estate industry — education, etc., etc. The minister has the right to designate where 50 percent of the funds go. If they weren't going to this foundation, where would they go? That's the question I want answered.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I want the member to understand that there is no change here from the present

[ Page 5095 ]

legislation. Under the present legislation and under these amendments, a consumer — a client of a real estate agent — can direct the real estate agent to place the deposit into an interest-bearing account, daily interest or otherwise, so that the client gets the benefit of the interest on that account, Nothing has changed. That's happened.

This is no different than the conditions of the law foundation which is set up, where there are amounts of money that sit in the bank accounts in trust and under the present legislation are not to earn interest to the benefit of the agent, so that the only benefactor under the present legislation is the bank.

Rather than have that money sit idle, earning no interest, while the bank has free use of the money, we are saying that it be put to good works. Put it into a real estate foundation. Have this board of governors direct it for education and information purposes, not just for real estate agents but also for consumers and for people who may need additional information or explanation about matters of real estate, so it benefits the public. It is a positive move, and one that I think should have been done a number of years ago. The only benefactor from present trust accounts not identified by the client to earn interest has been the banking system, not the public or anybody else.

That's the reason for this amendment, and I think the government House Leader would probably want to support my comments in this matter.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, I would very much like to do that, Mr. Chairman, because I think there is a feeling out there that the statements made by the hon. member for New Westminster are correct. With every respect to the hon. member, he has misconstrued the concept.

To put it very simply, as indeed my colleague the minister did: if you happen to put up a deposit with a real estate company, and it takes quite a while for the transaction to mature, it's possible for you to request that that would go into a separate account wherein you, as an individual, would be entitled to that interest. The real estate company is a trustee, per se, and is not entitled to any of the interest in any event. The only people who gain the use of the money are the banking community.

So, essentially, Mr. Minister — if I'm not misstating this — this applies more to the general fund. But if any person in the province wished to allocate a certain sum of money…. Say there's a deposit of $10,000 or $1,000, and it might appear that the transaction would be subject to a variety of matters, such as locating a mortgage or awaiting the completion of a structure, and you might have a three-month hiatus. Under that situation you would be able to request the trustee to put the money into an interest-bearing account and you, as the client, would be entitled to that interest. This deals with moneys that are not so specified and requested to be separately interest-bearing. Under those circumstances the trustee is not entitled to that interest. The trustee in this case would be the real estate company, the realtor, as it is in the case of trust accounts with lawyers; lawyers themselves are not entitled to the interest on a person's money. But where there is no allocation of a separate interest-bearing account to the client, then interest is not paid to anyone and essentially the banking community has the use of free money. This is to prevent that. That is the correct interpretation of the bill.

MR. COCKE: That's marvellous, Mr. Chairman. Both those two ministers — both of them are very well versed in the marketplace — told me that I'm right and they're wrong. Because were they to bring in an act….

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. COCKE: You will have your opportunity.

I agree that the banks have made millions and billions on these very matters. It strikes me that what the act should say is that the client automatically gets access. Why would some, because they are a little more business-oriented….

[10:45]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I realize that,

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's big bread.

MR. COCKE: Yes, it is. Exactly: it's very big money. The minister continues to interrupt, but listen to this chain of events. Were the government to bring in an act that would specify that everyone dealing with real estate companies had access to the interest. whether they opt for it or not…. What you're saying is that if people aren't highly skilled, in terms of the business world, they get deked out of theirs and it goes into some marvellous enterprise for this foundation.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It's not nonsense, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In the public interest.

MR. COCKE: In the public interest! The people are making a donation to this new foundation. On the other hand, if this act were to specify that the money would go into these daily interest accounts or whatever for the good of the person to whom the money is flowing — that is, the capital plus the interest, under those circumstances — the large real estate developers and so on will make sure that their money goes into accounts that will give them access to interest. That money will not go to the foundation. On the other hand, the little guy or little lady — woman — who's making a transaction and doesn't have the benefit of all knowledge in terms of real estate transactions will not receive a nickel, because it goes to the foundation, for the whole community.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's wrong with the whole community?

MR. COCKE: What's wrong with the whole community is the fact that if it's good for the whole community, then why don't we entitle people to make that kind of a contribution at their will to the Red Feather fund, or whatever? I don't feel that this particular foundation is going to be for the good of the whole community it's going to be good for the real estate board and the realtors as a whole.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I differ. I feel that if you're going to bring in a piece of legislation. bring it in and say that the clients, in every instance, are entitled to the interest on their money that is held in trust. It's pure and simple. Now what's wrong with that?

[ Page 5096 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I think the member opposite has read John Wood's recent letter to the editor of the Times-Colonist.

Let me say this to the member: first of all, there's no change for those people. Any client may direct the agent to put it into an interest-bearing account. That happens now, and there is no change. What the member fails to understand is that if we bring in a law that every real estate agent must put money into an interest-bearing account for the credit of the consumer, then consider the amount of transactions — phenomenal numbers. In some cases the individual interest may be less than a dollar — the money may only be in there for a day — or it may be less than $10. Consider the cost of opening an account at the bank. If you say, "Don't do that, just put all those little bits in the general account to make it earn interest," then consider the cost of having someone calculate the day's or two days' interest at the small amount; it would be astronomical. The cost of administration would far outstrip the benefit that the client would get. The attempt here is to take idle money that nobody gets the benefit of, allow it to earn interest, and turn it back into public good: to good works, as the statement goes — for information, education, improvement of real estate activities. Also, you'll notice that the minister — the government — has the opportunity to direct up to 50 percent into things in the public good. I think that would indicate to you, Mr. Member, that the real estate industry doesn't gets the entire benefit. I think it's a good act, a positive act, and I think the member in retrospect would also agree.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this monumental job of calculating interest, which is done today by computers and all the rest of the paraphernalia that we have available, is not of the magnitude that the minister suggests. The minister is saying that we're establishing a new foundation, and that new foundation isn't given the kind of direction to do good works that I feel it should have. I feel that the people who are making the transactions, particularly the little people, are entitled.

When you're dealing in real estate today you're not dealing in 50 cents and a dollar. You're not dealing in $100 deposits anymore. On a normal home you're dealing in a $1,000 deposit which sits there….

HON. MR. HEWITT: For three days.

MR. COCKE: Has he ever transacted a real estate deal? I've never done one yet that was less than 30 days in terms of that deposit sitting in trust. That's nonsense.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKE: Now hear me through, because I have done a few myself. The three days that the minister is talking about are the days when the whole sum goes from the vendor to the purchaser. That, I agree, is a short time, but that may be $100,000 or $75,000 or whatever; that is the time of some significance. The other time is the $1,000 deposit that sits there while that interim agreement is being brought to fruition, and that is a 30-day period — very rarely any less. In 30 days that $1,000 isn't 25 cents, not with today's interest rates; and probably after this afternoon they're going to be considerably higher, unfortunately.

That's all I have to say. I disagree.

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 16

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

[11:00]

MR. REID: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce today in the House the Kensington Prame Elementary School class of 27 students, their parents and Mr. Shields. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

Section 4 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 41, Real Estate Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 35.

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 35; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

[ Page 5097 ]

On section 2.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, we're opposed to this bill, and we're opposed to section 2 of the bill. What it fundamentally does is remove the Public Service Commission and its role of hiring, recruiting, selecting and appointing staff within the public service of this province, and that authority is taken over by the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services. The language of the clause gives the cabinet minister the authority to issue directives of all types, to determine many areas which have been to date subject to negotiations and collective bargaining with the various employee organizations who work for the government.

We oppose this move because it is a retrograde step. It's moving back to the days when the political component was very much a part of the recruitment process in government.

There are two things that a government really should not do. One is that it should not buy on the basis of friendship or political association. That's why we have purchasing commissions. That's a long-standing feature of government. Purchasing commissions came in in the twenties. They didn't come in because someone thought they'd be nice; they came in as a result of a series of scandals that resulted in the consensus that there had to be independence in buying goods and services for the government.

Public service commissions didn't come about because someone just came up with a clever idea and thought it would be fun or nice. They emerged as a result of a series of scandals of hiring and appointment. Into various positions of government that had political overtones. So the government was always off balance, reeling from scandals surrounding appointment policy within the public service. That was the old way that governments had of recruiting. They suffered from it. We now have a situation where this government feels that it must take over the appointment policy themselves.

I have a number of questions around section 2. Let me just point out some of my concerns. The Provincial Secretary can issue directives, and we don't know the nature of those directives. They're not the kinds of things that come out of policy manuals that are there in the Public Service Commission, which are somehow independently developed and relate to hiring — you know: "Here's a job description; here's a process around the hiring and appointment procedure." But we are buying a pig in a poke.

The Provincial Secretary will be charged with the responsibility and authority to write directives:

"(a) recruitment, selection and appointment of staff,

"(b) training, development and the health and safety of employees;

"(c) general administration of all labour relations matters of the public service;

"(d) terms and conditions of employment, including rates of compensation and employee expenses and allowances, subject to any applicable provisions of a collective agreement."

My first question, Mr. Chairman, is why that particular clause in subsection (d): "…subject to any applicable provisions of a collective agreement…" is not added to the other subsections under 2, like (a) to (g), which all are contained in collective agreements to one extent or another. Only (d) says that whatever happens will be subject to contracts arrived at between the employer and the employees. All of the others give the authority for the directives, almost in the sense that it overrides provisions of collective agreements or that those are no longer negotiable items. The various employee organizations will no longer have any say in (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g) and so on; (h) the establishment and maintenance of a personnel management information system — that's pretty much a management prerogative in many respects; (i) monitoring and auditing of personnel functions — personnel as an extension of the management role. What I am concerned about is (a) recruitment, selection, appointment. training development, health and safety, job evaluation and classification, standards for employee conduct, all matters respecting discipline, suspension and dismissal…. Those things are contained in collective agreements . But this act. further down, contains a clause that says this act overrides provisions of collective agreements. So my first question is: why don't you have that clause subject to any applicable collective agreement provisions under (a) to (h) inclusive?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, just a few words. The member for Victoria consistently suggests that the legislation we're attempting to introduce here, which is the streamlining of existing procedures…. What we're really attempting to do is…. We've initiated the melding of GERB with the Public Service Commission, and that in itself is what brought on this legislation. The member constantly suggests that this bill has been introduced just for patronage purposes.

Nothing will be changed as far as the hiring policies of this government are concerned. You have to take into consideration that recruiting and hiring at this time dots not deviate from what has taken place in the past. Since 1965 the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, the Attorney-General's ministry and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways — I might say that is the ministry that has the greatest number of employees of any ministry of government — have been hiring their own staff. All ministries of government have been directly hiring staff for some time, but these three specific ministries have been hiring since 1965. So I don't understand why you have this perverted point of view about what we're attempting to do. You see something sinister in what we're attempting to do. I don't see anything sinister in streamlining the act, making it more appropriate to our times. There's nothing sinister in that.

You're concerned about directives that will be issued under this section on personnel management. Any directive issued will be issued after consultation with the unions affected. Essentially, the status quo will prevail. The reason for the directives…. We can't possibly allow different ministries of government to go every which way. The directives have been issued primarily for the purpose of establishing consistency in ministries of government vis-à-vis the items that are contained in section 2.

The other point that you raised…. You talked about the collective agreement. You talked about, I believe, section 1.03 regarding conflict with regulations. Did you raise that one under the old act? That reads: "In the event that there is a conflict between the contents of this agreement and any regulation made by the employer or on behalf of the employer, this agreement shall take precedence over the said regulation." Well, that provision is already contained in the collective agreement, so it's redundant to repeat it here in the act.

[ Page 5098 ]

MR. HANSON: I'd like to ask the minister why he feels that it is more desirable to hire directly through his authority and his designated deputies and managers at various levels in the ministries than through an independent body that can, as the other act states, maintain a competent and meritorious public service. Why do you feel that you're more able to hire than a body that is separate and apart from any political bias?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, essentially I answered this question a little earlier. The member for Victoria said that hiring has already been taking place through various ministries of government for twenty years. Hiring takes place under all ministries as well, and what we're attempting to do is to remove the bureaucratic mechanism that is in place of moving the approval — essentially the rubber-stamping of the hiring of employees in various ministries — up to the Public Service Commission to be approved and then back to the ministry.

Also, I think the most important part of this change is ensuring that there is accountability in the various ministries of government on hiring practices.

The member attempts to leave the impression that I would be the czar of the hiring practices in this government. Certainly not.

MR. HANSON: That's what this act says.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Certainly not. I have said in this legislation that there will be directives and there will be consistency in the hiring practices of government. The status quo essentially will remain. So I don't know why you have these tremendous fears and apprehensions, and suggest that I have all these tremendous powers which are instilled in this act. I have indicated….

MS. BROWN: You just look powerful.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I look powerful? I'm just a little country boy from Columbia River. I certainly don't want all these great powers you suggest that I have. Therefore I will be delegating these powers by directives to the various line managers of the government, to ensure that there is consistency in the hiring practices in government.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a very specific question: why is the clause that comes into 2(d), "subject to any applicable provisions of a collective agreement," not attached to the prior subclauses and those up to (h), which are already within collective agreements and within the collective bargaining process? Why does only (d) have that clause?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Because in some cases the collective agreement does not apply at all. That's the only reason it's been done.

MR. HANSON: Sorry, I didn't hear you.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Because in some cases, vis-à-vis the section, the collective agreement does not apply at all.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, this section deals with management. The hon. member for Victoria is asking why more of the powers of management are not subject to applicable provisions of collective agreements. I suggest that if the substantial powers of management are subject to collective agreements, it's no longer management. That's the real answer.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that the minister will be happy with the assistance he's received from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, because what has happened now is that we've got the discussion in focus. Section 2 is in fact a management rights clause. The Provincial Secretary was shy in telling us that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour for telling it like it is.

Not to make a long speech about it, but the history of workplace democracy and the history of workers' rights in society revolves around the issue of management rights. Gradually over the years workers have begun to…

AN HON. MEMBER: Erode.

MR. GABELMANN: …erode the absolute rights that management originally had in our society. And those erosions proceed apace. Occasionally, as in times like now when we have recessions, the erosions don't proceed as quickly, and sometimes they go back the other way. But nevertheless there's a continuum in history about workers beginning to get some of the rights that they feel properly belong to them. The essential tension that exists between capital and labour relates to management rights. What we have in section 2 is a management rights clause.

The government has taken powers as a manager that the typical employer doesn't have. The typical private-sector employer does not have the right to construct legislation so that he can design a statute containing rights that are non-negotiable. Trade unions are able to raise issues. They may not succeed in gaining those rights in their collective agreement, and in many areas they don't, But what we have here in section 2 is the employer saying: "Some of these areas that you might choose to negotiate on are non-negotiable." That's what the clause says. "These. are management rights, and we as an employer are going to use the power of the state, theoretically a neutral agency in management-labour disputes, to protect our rights, so there cannot be a discussion between labour and management about the appropriate sharing of those particular rights…. Graciously the government has decided that compensation levels are subject to negotiation, by section 2(d). That clause wasn't included in section 2(d). I suspect we will go back to the days when the government said: "These are the rates. If you don't like them, go work somewhere else." That's what we have here; and I think we need to understand that.

1 would argue that some of those sections — (a) through (i) — are appropriately determined as management rights. I would argue that they are appropriately determined at the bargaining table, not by the power of the state to intercede on behalf of the employer, as it's doing here in this Legislature. These are items to be negotiated.

I don't pretend to know what workers in any of the three areas that are organized under the PSLRA would choose to push to gain some rights. But I suspect that in some of these sections, they would say: "No, those are properly management, and you can have those rights. For others, we would like to negotiate some say."

[ Page 5099 ]

For example, 2 (g): "all matters respecting discipline, suspension and dismissal of employees." It seems to me that, unless I misread and misunderstood — and that may be…. Maybe I misunderstand what the intention is, but I don't think I misunderstand the language. The language tells me that the government can issue directives, and therefore policy, on statutorily protected rights that therefore are non-negotiable. If the government issues directives about, say in 2 (g), matters respecting discipline…. They might have a clause that says: on the second infraction an employee loses his job; it's non-arbitrable, and no grievance procedure could come into play. What would stop the government from doing that under this section?

Those are the kinds of concerns that I have when the employer writes laws protecting its rights when in fact those matters should be open for discussion between the employer and the employee.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I just have a couple of remarks, Mr. Chairman, regarding the question of discipline. The collective agreements we have do not state what is appropriate discipline. Needless to say, there are grievance procedures in place which address any discipline which might be imposed.

On the question of what is contained in the collective agreement, that is pretty clearly spelled out in the contents of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, section 13. That spells out very clearly what the contents of a collective agreement will be. Of course that's not this legislation. Nevertheless, it's clearly spelled out. I don't want to read all the sections that are contained in that section 13 of the PSLRA.

MR. GABELMANN: Section 13 of the PSLRA says, among a lot of other things, that subject to section 20 of the Public Service Act…. Incidentally, that provision remains in the PSLRA, if I read this bill properly. I don't quite know how we can have a section in the PSLRA referring to a section of an act that doesn't exist any longer, but unless I've misread it, that seems to be the case. That's not the argument.

The argument relates to what in fact will be the powers of the minister by use of these directives. What are these directives? A directive under this section, as I understand it, cannot be: "Your pay will be so many dollars," because that is affected by the collective bargaining. But a directive could be: "This will be the disciplinary procedure," despite the fact that there's a clause in the collective agreement which outlines a grievance procedure which deals with discipline. The collective agreement may establish the step process and final resolution by arbitration. But if a directive says that the discipline will be dealt with in a different way, what prevails? Under the Public Service Act currently in force there's a provision that says the collective agreement shall prevail. That doesn't exist in this act.

I guess what I'm trying to determine is, how important are these powers in relation to the collective agreement? What prevails? Under this section of the bill, can the minister make null and void certain sections of the collective agreement?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Section 2 of the bill does not override nor expand section 13 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act. In the issuance of directives, there will be consultation with the parties affected, and the directives will not be in conflict with the provisions contained in the collective agreement.

MR. GABELMANN: May I ask the minister if the consultation that he envisages will be similar to the consultation concerning this legislation, where less than 24 hours before its introduction packages were delivered to the respective unions saying: "Here's what's coming down"? Is that the kind of consultation we can expect?

HON. MR. CHABOT: As a courtesy we gave notice to the union that legislation would be coming forward. There's been an announcement in place for about one year that there would be an amended Public Service Act. I believe it was contained in last year's throne speech. It might even have been mentioned in the budget speech; I'm not particularly conversant with that but I think there was mention there that there would be a new Public Service Act. So we gave prior notice to the union that there would be an amendment to the Public Service Act. The legislation was introduced on the Thursday. It wasn't brought forward to this House, I think, until Monday. There has been consolation between officials of my ministry, the BCGEU and other affected unions and parties to this legislation. So there has been input, questions put and explanations given regarding this legislation.

MR. GABELMANN; I'm not going to pursue the consultation question. We differ as to how consultation should take place. It seems to me….

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's a message bill. You have to be careful with a message bill.

MR. GABELMANN: When I was a back-bencher over there, I heard about message bills too, and I found the whole process a bit silly, quite frankly. That none of us can know about these things because they're message bills — that's not the way to make law. You make law by making sure that the people affected by the law are fully involved in the process. If there are differences of opinion about a certain principle, then obviously the Crown, the cabinet, prevails; no question about that. But there should be some process of discussion and debate. It may well make this kind of debate much shorter, because we may learn in that process that things don't mean what we fear they might mean.

I'm still not at all reassured about the power of these directives. If the directives in every section but clause (d) are not going to affect collective agreements, why is clause (d) saying it's subject to a collective agreement? The implication of that is that clause (d) is subject, but no other sections are subject to a collective agreement.

[11:30]

Job evaluation. Is job evaluation now to be done by Provincial Secretary directive, or is that something — like what happens throughout industry — that will be done jointly? Now the minister may say, "Sure it will be done jointly," but the way the law is written he may issue a directive saying it will be done by the employer, unless I misunderstand what "directive" means, but I don't think I do, because of clause (d).

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, of course that's the clause that the union would be most interested in, because it has to do with compensation. But really, I think you have to

[ Page 5100 ]

take into consideration that section 2 really will not override the provisions of the collective agreement. I think it's important to keep in mind that the collective agreement will prevail. There's never been any intention in this legislation or any other legislation to tamper with provisions of the collective agreement.

A directive is not a regulation. Essentially it has the same force as a regulation, but any directive that is put in place will be done in consultation with the employees' representatives. So I think we have to take that into consideration — the fact that there will be consultation with the parties before a directive is issued.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, just pursuing that line of investigation initiated by the member for North Island, traditionally there have been a few things in government service that have not been subject to negotiations. One is the establishment; in other words, the number of people working for the government. The establishment refers to the various structures of government, the number of individuals, the regular positions and so on. That is not negotiable.

The merit principle, the application of merit, is not negotiable. Traditionally the criteria upon which merit is applied is negotiable. In other words, there is discussion and negotiation on education, work experience, qualifications and so on.

What we see in section 2 is that the government is removing from negotiation — from the right to negotiate — a series of dimensions of work life. That's what it is, isn't it? In other words, it's not overriding the collective agreements that are in place at the moment, but when those contracts with 50,000 public sector workers, whether they work in institutions like Riverview, Woodlands, Glendale or so on, or in the line ministries, or in the Crown corporations — because there are a lot of consequential amendments at the back which refer to many other areas such as the ombudsman, the Petroleum Corporation and all of those agencies of government…. What the government is saying is that no longer will the bargaining agents or the employees have any say in the following things: no say whatsoever when the contract expires, because we know that they're also going to be bringing in changes to the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

So you have to see them both together. What they're going to be saying, effective at the termination of the collective agreement, is that the union will have no say at all in the negotiation of the criteria for determining merit. They'll consult: that can mean a phone call, that can mean a letter, that can mean talking on television to them. That's the way consultation is and has been. There wasn't any great lead consultation up to this bill. I don't think that the employee organizations had more than 24 hours' notice that it was coming into this House. That's consultation. So I think we should bear that in mind. When the minister mentions consultation, that's what that means.

Now when the contracts expire, whenever it is — September 30 or October 31, I can't recall which — only (d) will be negotiable. Matters respecting health and safety will be determined by a directive from the minister. Matters referring to discipline, suspension and dismissal will be directed by the minister, so this new body that will negotiate on behalf of the government will sit there on the table with a stack of directives, and every time the nurses, the professionals or the BCGEU say, "We have a concern around health and safety, and we want to discuss this matter," the bargaining group will hold up the directive saying it is already covered by this directive and it is not negotiable — right or wrong?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Chairman, the member reads into the legislation a lot of things that aren't contained within it. I indicated a little earlier…. I know that the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) doesn't like this business of saying it's a message bill, but we gave you notice. Whether we would have given notice a week before or a day before didn't really matter. Because of the fact that it was a message bill, we didn't have the opportunity to have the thing vetted prior to its introduction.

But I know that my officials and my ministry have had consultation, since the introduction of the bill, with various parties. I know for a fact that the length and the amount of consultation they have might have been less than what the member from Victoria had with the BCGEU, but he has a particular pecuniary interest there, I guess.

I remember when a former Provincial Secretary — in 1974, I believe it was — signed a collective agreement in his office with Mr. Fryer of the BCGEU. Essentially, the approach taken by the government and the minister of the day was, "Your wish is my command," and virtually everything that the union requested was written into the collective agreement in 1974. We think that those issues should be bargained, that it shouldn't be a love-in between the employer and the employee, a complete abdication of responsibility on the part of the employer. And that's exactly what took place in 1974. It was a love-in! Your wish is my command! That's what the former Provincial Secretary said in 1974.

I think you have to take into consideration that this legislation goes beyond the realm of the BCGEU. It applies to other people working for the provincial government: excludeds, and other union members as well. It also applies, if you read the legislation, to people who aren't even working for the provincial government at this time. So it goes beyond the realm of BCGEU concerns. We have to have some fairness, some balance in the legislation, and address all the various parties who wish to work for the provincial government.

1 think that the member suggests that…. He just does not listen. He has a point of view to express. I don't know where he acquired that point of view, or who embedded that in his mind. Nevertheless, he's unwilling to accept the words that I utter in this House. He just closes his mind completely. But he does open his mind sometimes, and listens to some people sometimes. But for some unknown reason he just will not accept at face value the statements that I make in this House. They're on record. They're statements that I have to live with. You must have a little bit more respect for statements that are uttered in this House by a minister of the Crown.

1 said that this particular section does not override or expand section 13 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act. I think it's necessary to put on the record what the contents of the collective agreement can entail. Section 13 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act says:

"Every collective agreement shall include all matters affecting wages or salary, hours of work and other working conditions, except (a) the principle of merit and its application in the appointment and pro motion of employees, subject to section 20 of the Public Service Act; (b) all matters included under the Pension (Public Service) Act; (c) the organization,

[ Page 5101 ]

establishment and administration of the ministries and branches of the government, except the effect of reductions in establishment of employees, which shall be negotiated by the parties; (d) the application of the system of classification of positions or job evaluation under the Public Service Act and regulations, and (e) the procedures and methods of training or retraining all employees not affected by section 18, other than training programs administered with a branch or ministry that apply to one occupational group only."

So those are the contents and those are the issues that can be addressed within the realm of the collective agreement.

The Public Service Labour Relations Act also says, talking about other acts under section 26: "Unless otherwise provided in this act, the Labour Code applies, but, where this act is contrary to, in conflict with or inconsistent with that or any other act, this act prevails." So if there are any inconsistencies in the Public Service Act — and I doubt there are any — the Public Service Labour Relations Act shall apply. They're fully protected. Get on the phone and tell them.

[11:45]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, that minister dances very well, but he wants to dance around the fundamental issue of the thing. We know that the Public Service Labour Relations Act is going to be amended. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) has already said that it's going to be amended. The minister stated that some time ago.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's news to me.

MR. HANSON: Okay. But let's look at this scenario. Section 13 of the PSLRA, let's say, is amended to say that section 2 of the Public Service Act applies. Let's just say, for example, that section 13 and section 26 of the PSLRA are amended in the next session to delete those matters and make section 2 of the Public Service Act apply.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's wild speculation.

MR. HANSON: I want to ask, and I want you to state before the members of this House, whether in your view these section 2 matters that do not have, as does subsection (d), the clause "subject to any applicable provisions of a collective agreement" are negotiable items for present and subsequent negotiations.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not all of them, Mr. Chairman, because some of them are not negotiable under the provisions of PSLRA. But we're certainly prepared to consult and negotiate on those that are not negotiable under the provisions of PSLRA, section 13. We're prepared to consult before any changes are made — full consultation before the provisions of a directive are put in place.

MR. HANSON: What the minister is essentially saying is that only (d) will be subject to negotiation; that health and safety matters, training and other aspects of work life which formerly were the subject of negotiation contained in clauses of the collective agreements, and where provisions of the Public Service Labour Relations Act don't preclude them from bargaining…. What this minister has done is to outline the categories where he's going to issue directives. He's identified (d) as the only area where collective bargaining will apply. He will subsequently amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act to make all matters affecting bargaining conditional upon clause 2; then he will have assumed all authority other than negotiations for wages and hours, and that will be about it. Health and safety matters, training, job evaluation and any other matters respecting discipline and grievances and so on will be removed from collective bargaining.

Are you prepared to state that that is unequivocally not the case?

MR. DAVIS: The hon. member for Victoria is saying that only in respect to subclause (d) are the management powers of the government — the Provincial Secretary in his role as head of the personnel department of government — subject to any applicable provisions of a collective agreement. If I glance through the bill I see that there is a directive to consult with the representatives of employees in the matter of the determination of merit; and subsequently in clause 15 — if I can mention it — dismissal and suspension of employees is spelled out as subject to existing collective agreements.

MR. HANSON: Existing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Victoria has a wild imagination. When he first sees something that is beyond what's written in the act, he sees some ulterior motive. He sees shenanigans taking place. It's all very clearly spelled out here,

MR. HANSON: I've been your critic far too long. Belle Ede told me all about you.

HON. MR. CHABOT: One of my good constituents—  and I have lots of good constituents. They're all good people, whether they vote for me or not.

What the member fails to understand is that what is subject to negotiation today will be negotiable tomorrow. There has been no change in that respect. Items that are subject to negotiation will continue to be subject to negotiation. I don't know if I have to repeat it one more time. There is no change in that respect. Items that are not presently subject to negotiation will be addressed by directive. Under those circumstances we've broadened our sense of responsibility of communications with the affected parties and we will consult with them. What more can you expect?

MR. GABELMANN: Quite a bit, Mr. Chairman.

May I ask the minister if section 13 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act fairly portrays current and expected future government policy?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty responding to what future government policy will be; future government policy will be revealed in the fullness of time.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I should have split the question. Does section 13 of the PSLRA at this time reflect not only government policy but the minister's opinion of what government policies should be?

[ Page 5102 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, we're into the Public Service Regulations Act now in section 13. We're really not debating that, but essentially….

AN HON. MEMBER: It's relevant.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, I guess it's relevant to this legislation. Absolutely, it reflects current government policy. That's what it does.

MR. HANSON: I want to ask a question about these directives. Does he have any directives that he could table in the House, so we could get an idea of what they might look like?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no. But those directives will be made available to the public. They will not be in secret rooms, back rooms, or any other kinds of rooms. They will be public documents, and they will see the light of day.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, let's just say for argument that one of the directives that the minister developed with his assistants was a totally haywire directive. Does he see his directives going to the commission to be examined? In other words, is a directive going to be appealable to the Public Service Commission? When you say that the function of the new commission will be appeals, will one of his directives be appealable if it is haywire?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, it will not go to the…. It's not their responsibility to attempt to change what is essentially government policy. The contents of the directive will be made available to the trade unions before it has been implemented. They will have the opportunity of expressing their point of view. Directives — that's what is nice about directives — are more easily changed their regulations, even though they have the same force as the regulation. If they are deemed to be imperfect, and they don't respond to the needs of the day, then they can be amended. And they would only be amended after consultation took place.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the remarks of the minister are the basis for our concern that those directives can be so fluid, so political. They can demarcate posting areas….

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: They can; it's stated in the bill, They can determine that only individuals living in a certain part of the province can apply for a position. It's subject to political abuse, because whether you believe yourself to be a politician or not, you're a politician. You're not an administrator; you're a politician.

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 11:57 a.m.