[ Page 1907 ]
Routine Proceedings
Legislative Assembly Board Of Internal Economy Act (Bill 35). Hon. Mr. Strachan
Introduction and first reading –– 1907
Waste Management Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 38). Hon. Mr. Strachan
Introduction and first reading –– 1907
School Support (Independent) Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 33). Hon. Mr. Brummet
Introduction and first reading –– 1907
Oral Questions
Lyell Island timber values. Mr. Williams –– 1908
Response to federal White Paper on taxation. Mr. Stupich –– 1908
Environmental appeal process. Ms. Smallwood –– 1908
Silviculture audit. Mr. Kempf –– 1909
Free trade. Mr. Rose –– 1909
Meech Lake accord. Mr. Harcourt –– 1909
Minimum wage protection. Mr. Cashore –– 1909
Tabling Documents –– 1910
Expropriation Act (Bill 22). Committee stage. (Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 1910
Mr. Sihota
Ms. Marzari
Mr. Rose
Mr. Williams
Mr. Lovick
Report
Legal Profession Act (Bill 25). Committee stage. (Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 1919
Mr. Sihota
Mr. Rose
Report
Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19). Third reading. (Hon. L. Hanson) –– 1920
Mr. Gabelmann
Mr. Lovick
Ms. A. Hagen
Mr. Clark
Mrs. Boone
Mr. Miller
Appendix –– 1933
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm making this introduction on behalf of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), who is not with us today. Would the House please welcome constituents of his from North Saanich, Brent and Inez Alley. As well, I'd like the House to welcome Mrs. Vickie Tuck of Victoria, and Joyce Ann Diemers, a political science instructor from Napa, California.
MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Bob Stewart. Bob Stewart is the archivist of the United Church in British Columbia. He's on the staff of First United Church and lives in the downtown east side. I ask the House to join me in welcoming Bob Stewart.
MR. VANT: Today is a special day. Back on June 22, 1916, John A. Fraser was the MLA for Cariboo. It so happens that the current hon. first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) was born on that day right here in Victoria. I know that the House will join me in wishing him a very happy birthday.
MR. JONES: Joining us today are six members of the North Burnaby Air Cadets and their supervisor, Mr. Keith Webster. I'd like the House to make them especially welcome.
MS. CAMPBELL: Like many members, I had the pleasure of celebrating Father's Day yesterday. I had the good luck to be able to celebrate it with my father and with my uncle, who is out from Montreal. Would the House please welcome George and Marg Campbell, Frieda Parkinson and Carl and Marguerite Campbell from Montreal.
Introduction of Bills
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY ACT
Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Legislative Assembly Board of Internal Economy Act.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Hon. members, this is indeed our bill, a bill of internal economy for the Legislative Assembly. It parallels legislation that exists in most precincts across Canada.
The bill mentions the board, which will be comprised of His Honour the Speaker, the government House Leader, the opposition House Leader, the government caucus chairman and the opposition caucus chairman. I should point out that the five of us spent some time, along with able assistance from other learned gentlemen involved in this process, and moved with some very good works to having this bill prepared. I'm pleased to introduce it now. I think it's going to be of genuine benefit to all members and will help us in our internal deliberations for years to come.
With that said, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Bill 35 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
WASTE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1987
Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Waste Management Amendment Act, 1987.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Some time ago, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations put in place a committee headed by Dr. David Boyes, one of British Columbia's noted gentlemen in the world of cancer research and a very qualified individual. That committee has met for some time now. The government has put in place draft regulations consistent with other regulations across Canada with respect to waste management. This legislation will move us toward the formation of legislation regarding waste management and subsequent regulations. It follows up the work done by Dr. David Boyes and his excellent committee, and I'm sure will aid their deliberations in the years to come.
With that said. I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Bill 38 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
SCHOOL SUPPORT (INDEPENDENT)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1987
Hon. Mr. Brummet presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled School Support (Independent) Amendment Act, 1987.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: This bill brings to the Legislature some of the items that were announced in the budget speech earlier this year. In short, it extends for the first time independent school qualification to children of the diplomatic corps. It also provides for funding of independent schools after one year of operation, rather than three years, as it has been in the past. We did check across Canada and find that it has not generally changed the number of independent schools that are formed.
It also requires that the provincial learning assessment program and the grade 12 scholarship exams be a condition for qualifying for funding for group 2 schools. It changes the schedule of grant payments from after the school year, for some of it, to during the school year — between January and December, rather than in August and December, for the previous year.
I might add that the percentage funding is looked after by order-in-council, so that's not contained in this bill — the changes we've had there.
One of the things we've added, which I think will be a great economic benefit to British Columbia and to people who send students here to private schools, is a voluntary accreditation program. The private schools — I distinguish them from the independent schools — that are non-funded can request an accreditation procedure by qualified people
[ Page 1908 ]
designated by the ministry; they pay the full cost of that. Then, of course, there is legislation to prevent them from advertising accreditation unless they have in fact met the requirements.
There are a few consequential amendments that bring this act into line with the Teaching Profession Act. That said, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that the bill be read a first time now.
Bill 33 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[2:15]
Oral Questions
LYELL ISLAND TIMBER VALUES
MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to file with the House affidavits from November 1985 with respect to valuation of logs on Lyell Island — Mr. Beban. The number is $57 a cubic metre, not the $200 that the minister has been touting. My question is to the minister. Is the minister prepared to carry on some serious negotiations around realistic numbers with respect to the logging values on Lyell Island?
HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, a cubic metre of timber cut in British Columbia is worth about $200 in economic activity, from the time you make your initial surveys until the final product is delivered to the customer. The affidavit that the hon. member refers to has nothing to do with that. What it states is what the contract that Mr. Beban has is worth. Those are two different items, and if he's going to talk about it in the House, he should be comparing apples with apples.
MR. WILLIAMS: Further to the minister, Mr. Speaker: would the minister agree that Mr. Behan is a business person, and that Mr. Beban, before the courts of British Columbia, determined the economic value of those logs to his business — a free market transaction base; not some kind of phony number like the minister is pulling out of the air — and that those are real numbers determined by a businessman appearing before the courts to establish those values?
HON. MR. PARKER: That's precisely what I said. That's what the value of that man's contract is. The $200 figure that I gave is the economic worth of a cubic metre of timber harvested in this province. The value is to this province, not to Mr. Beban.
RESPONSE TO FEDERAL
WHITE PAPER ON TAXATION
MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. I wonder if the Premier could explain what are apparent contradictions on the part of this government. On one hand they're prepared to give up the dream of a national park for what really are fantasy numbers, and on the other hand when the federal government tells us in their White Paper that B.C. is going to lose some $15 million over a period of five years on the new tax system — Ontario is going to gain some $547 million — B.C. is not at all concerned about this. We've had no response from the province.
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps this should be responded to by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), but I would just add the following, however. Obviously we're not happy with the loss of revenues because of Ontario having far more industry and therefore receiving a greater return from the increases that have been provided in that area, while ours is more dependent on personal income tax taxes, which, for a good part, have seen a reduction.
So yes, the tax changes are costing British Columbia. The decision, however, was made by the government of Canada, and I suppose, as they do with all of these matters, they consider the whole of the population of Canada in these changes. As unfortunately happens so often, we happen to represent only a small portion of that total population, and thus Ontario comes out the winner and we don't do so well.
We're not happy with it, but we obviously can't change the federal tax laws now before the House there.
MR. STUPICH: The same table shows that B.C. is losing more than any other Canadian province, so we're worst off when it comes to corporations versus personal. I would ask the Premier: is this the real legacy of 32 years of Social Credit government in B.C.?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In dollar terms, the only province that pays more is Quebec; it's $100 million. For us the cost is nearer $60 million. You're right, on a per capita basis, then, we are possibly paying more towards that than any other province, which is unfortunate.
We certainly have fought long and hard to diversify the economy, and we'll continue to do so; it's a priority of this government. But I can assure the hon. member that we'll not win that battle if we proceed, as has been suggested from your side, to give away a forest resource — such as you're proposing at Lyell Island — for a whole lot less than it's worth.
MR. STUPICH: These are total dollars, not dollars per capita: B.C. losing $15 million over a five-year period; Manitoba gaining $29 million. Would the Premier admit, then, that Manitoba apparently has done a better job of attracting corporations per capita than has British Columbia?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Perhaps it's fair to say that the further east one goes, the greater the percentage of industrial development. That is something we've been attempting to address, which is why for the first time in the history of Canada we now have a council made up of federal and provincial ministers to address this. We certainly also have the support of the western Premiers in addressing the inequities as they exist. So it will be addressed. But let me reiterate: while that is being addressed, we must protect our forestry resource; it's still the number one industry in this province.
ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL PROCESS
MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Minister of Environment. I shared with the minister the telegram that was sent to the boss of Hugh Kaufman, with the Environmental Protection Agency, and his letter. It's ironic that when the ministry intervened in the process of the appeals hearing to be held in Cache Creek tomorrow, Mr. Kaufman was not at that
[ Page 1909 ]
point a witness. My question is: will the minister explain to this House why he is interfering in the appeals process that is going to be held tomorrow in Cache Creek?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: The minister is not interfering.
Perhaps you could explain your letter a little better, so the whole House understands what your question is.
MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to thank the minister for that opportunity, and would ask the minister to have his colleagues give me that right.
The point the letter makes, and in the telegram.... An official from waste management asked for the credentials of Mr. Kaufman. What the ministry is saying in this telegram is that Mr. Kaufman was to be a witness at the appeals hearing tomorrow. At that time, Mr. Kaufman was not a witness; the intention was that he would not be a witness, because the citizens' group couldn't afford the air fare. So what Mr. Kaufman is saying in the covering letter is that he feels that this is undue pressure to encourage him not to come up to Canada and give expert testimony. I would like to know what role the ministry has in an appeals hearing. The appeals hearing is supposed to be at arm's length from the ministry.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: You can check with your desk mate or any of the other people who are trained in the law on this issue. When you have a hearing such as this, all people who are to be witnesses share with other witnesses their credentials and qualifications and whom they are representing. We have asked two questions. Number one, is the gentleman from Washington representing the Environmental Protection Agency? That's a fair question. Number two, if he is going to be a witness, what are his credentials? Is he an engineer? Is he a biologist? What sort of expertise does he bring to the appeal process? That's a common courtesy. My officials share it with the hearing process and with other witnesses, and it's a common courtesy in law and in this type of tribunal.
SILVICULTURE AUDIT
MR. KEMPF: A question to the Minister of Forests and Lands. On December 12, 1986, a silviculture audit was initiated in the ministry. Has the minister decided to make the results of that audit public?
HON. MR. PARKER: I'll take that question on notice, Mr. Speaker. I'm not aware of that audit, and I thank the member for the opportunity to bring it forth.
MR. KEMPF: Perhaps I could help the minister. The audit suggests that the ministry does not have adequate information on forestry inventory data and growth yield, and does not understand their future value in volume yield — what will be made from the investment they put in it today. It also said that there is an apparent excess emphasis on planting versus other treatments such as thinning, fertilization, spacing, etc. I hope that that additional information will help the minister to find the audit.
My second question: when he finds it, will he make that information available to this House?
HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I will continue to take that question on notice.
FREE TRADE
MR. ROSE: I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture; it concerns a leaked document, So far this government has shown blind faith in the Tories' position on free trade. The farm sector in this province could be at jeopardy, since the subsidies to agriculture, including marketing boards and dairy and poultry products, are subsidies, according to the U.S. What is the government doing to protect the farm sector from this government, rather than just depending on the federal government or the federal Minister of Agriculture to protect us?
HON. MR. SAVAGE: To the hon. opposition House Leader, this government and myself as the minister, and my staff, are monitoring all of the actions that are being brought forward on the trading table in the bilateral discussions, as they relate to subsidies that also exist in the United States. They are substantially higher than those that exist in Canada.
MR. ROSE: I am pleased to hear that from the minister.
The same document. Mr. Speaker, says the U.S. wants all tariffs eliminated, with no exceptions. even seasonal tariffs. This is a real threat to the fruit and vegetable industry. Does the province still trust the federal government — since they don't have a seat at the table themselves — to protect B.C. interests?
HON. MR. SAVAGE: We certainly are very keen to get our message across, as it relates to any countervailing action, whether it is seasonal tariffs, whether it is an east-west, whether it is an ad valorem duty. We are monitoring all discussions that are taking place. We have to rely on the reporting coming back to us from the discussions, and we are doing that through the Economic Development ministry.
MEECH LAKE ACCORD
MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier about the Meech Lake accord. Other provincial legislatures have placed resolutions on their order paper about the Meech Lake accord. I would like to ask the Premier if he intends to place the necessary resolution on our order paper so that we can have a look at it.
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, that is being worked on now by cabinet and certainly will be forthcoming.
MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier if he can assure us that the B.C. resolution will include a call for mandatory discussion of aboriginal rights at a future first ministers' conference,
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, that is not a part of the accord.
MINIMUM WAGE PROTECTION
MR. CASHORE: A question for the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) said on radio this morning that if any fruit grower paid his workers S2 an hour, that would be in violation of the Employment Standards Act. Many workers are paid less than the hourly minimum wage because they are doing piecework.
[ Page 1910 ]
Has the minister decided to take up his colleague's recommendation by providing fruit pickers with hourly minimum wage protection under the Employment Standards Act?
[2:30]
HON. L. HANSON: I was not party to the statement that was made this morning. Certainly there is a provision in the labour standards act for piecework. I guess the question is whether I am going to take action on it. The answer is no, not at this moment. Certainly that is a provision that has long been accepted in the labour standards act. My suggestion is that those people who are on piecework earn much more than the minimum wage.
Mr. Williams tabled documents referred to in question period.
Hon. L. Hanson tabled the annual report of the Council of Human Rights for the year ending March 31, 1986.
Orders of the Day
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 22.
EXPROPRIATION ACT
The House in committee on Bill 22; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
On section 1.
HON. B.R. SMITH: I move an amendment which is not on the order paper. I gave notice of it on Friday to my opposite number, Mr. Chairman, and it was filed this morning. It changes the definition of "approving authority" in section 1 by adding a paragraph: "...for an expropriation made under the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act...or the Greater Vancouver Water District Act...the Corporation constituted and incorporated, respectively, under those Acts, unless the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council designates the Minister of Municipal Affairs as the approving authority for the purpose of expropriations under either or both of those Acts, or any particular expropriation...." That simply allows the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District and the Greater Vancouver Water District to become their own approving authorities, which is in accordance with the representations that they have made to us since the bill was given second reading.
On the amendment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the critic have a copy of these amendments?
MR. SIHOTA: Not physically. They were given to me. I just got somebody to go out and pick them up for me. That's okay; I don't need them. If you have another copy, I'd....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Then we're prepared to debate the amendment on section 1?
MR. SIHOTA: That's right.
Amendment approved.
On section 1 as amended.
MR. SIHOTA: There's a point that I'd just like to put on the record. I think we've already debated this. It's with respect to the exclusion of section 47 of the Land Act. I think I pointed out earlier on in debate that the ombudsman has recommended that that 5 percent provision ought to be compensated for, and I see under the provisions of section 1 that it will not be compensated for, if I'm not mistaken. If that understanding is correct, I think we have some objections to that. Other than that, section 1 is quite okay from our point of view.
HON. B.R. SMITH: This bill doesn't change section 47, and doesn't attempt to do so. I suppose that we could go further afield than this, but we didn't. The member is quite right.
Section 1 as amended approved.
On section 2.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General will introduce an amendment to section 2.
HON. B.R. SMITH: Section 2 will add a subsection (4), which simply says: "This Act does not apply to replotting under Division 2 of Part 28 of the Municipal Act." That provision, Mr. Chairman, removes the possibility of the Expropriation Act applying to a replotting under the Municipal Act.
While it's true that replotting can technically amount to a minor taking in some cases, the system presently in place is quite self-contained and complex, and it is inappropriate to apply this act without a wholesale revision of the plotting process itself. As with other parts of the Municipal Act, I could see some reform in those directions over the years ahead, but that should be part of a revision to the Municipal Act, and for that reason we tried to separate the plotting provisions from the Expropriation Act.
Amendment approved.
Section 2 as amended approved.
On section 3.
MR. SIHOTA: I want to raise again an issue that I raised in second reading on this section. It's simply as follows. I guess I'm disappointed to see that there's no amendment on this issue, whereas there were on others. I've always felt that this is one where a certificate of independent advice from a solicitor ought to have been provided, so that the owner who has agreed to transfer his land or to have land dedicated is fully apprised of his or her rights under the act. I believe that to be a fairly significant request on the part of this side of the House, because there ought to be that one additional assurance that someone who has agreed to dedicate or transfer land fully understands what his or her rights are under this section. I prefer to see an inclusion of an additional clause to deal with that type of situation.
[ Page 1911 ]
HON. B.R. SMITH: I certainly gave thought to those remarks when they were made in second reading, and it seemed very difficult to try to translate the rights and responsibilities under this bill to a kind of certificate which is given all too pro forma, I suspect, in the administration of the Divorce Act of Canada — a certification that may be given there that advice has been given. But since advice that would be given in a case of this kind might or might not touch upon value — the field of appraisals which members of the legal profession are perhaps not equipped to advise under — I doubt that you would get such certificates readily or that you'd get members of the legal profession who would sign a certificate. I felt that to put in such a provision would hamstring the administration, rather than protect the rights of the owner. I'm certainly not averse to considering some protective provision in the operation of it, but I just could not see a way of putting in a certification provision when a lawyer is not an appraiser and could not really give a certificate on anything dealing with value. That was the problem I had; I certainly gave careful consideration to the member's proposal.
Sections 3 and 4 approved.
On section 5.
HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment to section 5 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
On the amendment.
MR. SIHOTA: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Attorney-General for the amendment, in that it is in direct response to the issues I raised during the course of the recent debate. I guess in some measure they relieve the concerns that I had with respect to section 5.
There is still a provision which would allow the cabinet to exercise its power in certain cases, particularly with respect to emergency and undue delay, and I guess it's in that area that I'm not satisfied. I was wondering if the Attorney-General could advise me whether or not he would agree that there ought to be a provision for appeal from a cabinet decision.
HON. B.R. SMITH: I was quite delighted to cut down the ambit of the extraordinary power in the section, because I think the member's point was very well made. But the reason why you would want to keep some emergency control there, for what we have described in the amendment as an "emergency" or "undue delay," without having the actual taking appealed.... That would be the kind of situation where you have a road or a bridge that has collapsed. and you have to take some step which involves taking land. You really have to do your due process on the question of valuation later you cannot really do your due process on the taking at that time.
While I admit that it should be very sparingly used, I cannot see that it would be an emergency power if it was subject to an appeal, because the first things that would happen in practice, if you had some very conscientious owners who felt that under no circumstances was it appropriate to take their land, is that they would appeal that emergency decision and ask for a stay of proceedings, pending a determination as to whether the taking was justified. You'd have the emergency still there, and we would not be able to use that land to take care of the emergency.
So I think there has to be emergency power without appeal, but I certainly agree that its use should be tightly circumscribed in its statutory basis, and that's what we've done. The member has assisted in much improving and carefully prescribing the ambit of the power, and I'm indebted to him.
MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the Attorney-General for those kind words, and I would hope that when this section gets implemented it really will be used sparingly.
The words "undue delay" in particular cause me some concern. I agree that emergencies will only arise from time to time. If it's a case of simply acquiring property to deal with the highway that's been flooded or whatever, I'm surprised that that kind of provision doesn't exist already within the relevant legislation governing highways. I stand to be corrected on that, and indeed I must confess that I haven't checked to see whether or not that is the case.
Having said that, the words "undue delay in the project" really cause me a lot of concern. I can envision situations, particularly with large Crown corporations — for example, B.C. Hydro — where, within the confines of cabinet, a case could be made in the context of undue delay with respect to a particular project. Without the opportunity for other parties to intervene and to state their case, it seems to me that that section can be taken advantage of.
[2:45]
During debate on the essential services component of Bill 19, I talked about getting trigger-happy with the words "essential services," that one can broaden them or narrow them. I feel that one could get trigger-happy in the same way with the words "undue delay." Would the Attorney-General agree, therefore, that as a further check cabinet be required to make a report to the House with respect to its decisions? I know that that issue was canvassed before. I'm not too sure whether it has now been amended in the legislation; it's some time since I've looked at it. If appeal procedures are out — and I see the merit in that — why not consider a report to the House?
HON. B.R. SMITH: I don't see any problem with inserting a reporting provision, I would then suggest that we stand the section down — under our rules we can return to it — and we'll draft a further amendment to do that. Sure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, we'll hold that one over. We'll continue on to section 6.
On section 6.
MS. MARZARI: I don't know if I'm standing at the appropriate time, but section 6, section 10 and section 13 are all relevant regarding the point that I wish to make, which is in response to a gentleman who approached me a few weeks ago and who has himself been through a rather disastrous and lengthy expropriation procedure. He has written a letter — which arrived today — through me to the Attorney-General and to the critic, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.
When we're looking at section 6, the point that Mr. Harry Kohne would like to make, and which I would like to make
[ Page 1912 ]
on his behalf, is that we're dealing here with the procedure that an individual actually goes through when his or her home is expropriated. Part of that procedure has to do with "the purpose for which the expropriation is required" — section 6(4)(d). I gather that under this bill the individual has to be notified as to the purpose for which expropriation is required. The point is made that this purpose really does the individual no good. If the individual wishes to protest, he is told in section 10 that he is only allowed to go to an inquiry on a claim for compensation, and he is told in section 13 that the necessity for the project or work for which the expropriation is sought would not be considered at an inquiry.
Would the Attorney-General be good enough to clarify these points for me, as they are somewhat complicated, and it is a mushing together of many points? I would like basically to know what we're dealing with here in terms of the individual's rights when an inquiry comes about.
HON. B.R. SMITH: If his argument is correct, then the power to expropriate under section 10 would be something you could call into question every time it arose. There is not, to my knowledge, any statute in the country that allows you to do that. What this bill does is permit a non-linear development for a site-specific development. The owner can question the wisdom of the expropriating authority to take that parcel of land as opposed to another parcel. Therefore it's a tremendous step forward for those landowners who find they're the victims of site-specific expropriation. Say that it's going to be a school or a recreation centre or something else, and that it could be better built somewhere else; then it's up to them to do that. But you can't do that for a highway. You can't do that for a pipeline or for a rail.
I just had a very short moment to read this gentleman's letter, and I wish it had come in some time ago, because the bill has been in the chamber for quite some time. We deliberately left it there so that we would get a chance to have representations. I think he is seeing things that aren't there. It is for the very reason that we have people like this, who have been victims of expropriations in this province — airport expropriations and others — that we feel very strongly that we need a bill that has some fair procedures, that does permit a property owner to be paid an appraised value up front in advance for his land.
That person can either challenge the expropriation if it's non-linear, or he can certainly challenge the value if it is linear. I think that his letter is a reflection of his own terrible experience with expropriation, and therefore I read it as a very strong emotional statement. I would hope that our bill is going to prevent more victims like this gentleman. I know you do as well.
MR. SIHOTA: This concern may be captured under 6(4)(g), but I do want to raise it again. I referred in section 3, I believe, to the requirement for a solicitor to give a certificate of independent legal advice telling someone what or what was not their rights under this act. Another way of dealing with my concern, I think, is to make sure that the notice which is left on the property or served upon the owner clearly outlines the various options and rights available under this legislation to the affected property owner.
Could the Attorney-General confirm that that could be done in section 6(4)(g), and could we not, within the regulations, ensure that the notice accurately lays out the various options that are open to people under this legislation?
HON. B.R. SMITH: That's certainly our reading of 6(4)(g), that that could be done in there. It might be appropriate to do that.
Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.
On section 9.
MR. SIHOTA: The Premier is overly anxious in saying "aye" to that one. I think that it's fairly well acknowledged that this provision gives me the most amount of difficulty. With respect to the exclusion of linear developments from the act, this legislation, fairly put, is modelled after the 1984 proposed legislation — I believe it was Bill 30 or Bill 34. That legislation did not contain language similar to 9(2); in fact, the 1984 version, if I recollect correctly, simply exempted only expropriations under the Emergency Program Act and the Health Act. Perhaps the minister could explain to us the history of this section so we can understand why it is that linear development has been excluded from the act and what happened between 1984 and 1987 to bring about this subsection.
HON. B.R. SMITH: The earlier bill was an exposure bill. I guess one thing that happened during the interval was that close consideration was given to some major highway improvements — particularly the Island Highway — and the need that will exist to make some major decisions, such as with the Nanaimo bypass. I think the important time to have your public involvement and input is before you get to any kind of taking.
You obviously have to have a public process and the Highways ministry has to have a public process. That public process must be early, before you go ahead and announce your route. Once you announce your route, you're bound to have somebody who isn't going to like that route. You cannot then strangle the whole thing with process and put in doubt as to whether the route is going to go ahead. I think you have to go ahead with the route. We feel that that's only crucial when you're talking about the route on a linear development — a pipeline, a railway or a highway.
Where you don't have that crucial nature of the particular route, we concede that a pre-hearing process is a good thing. I know it certainly would be the intention of Transportation and Highways to have an early public process well before there was any taking, if indeed there has to be any taking. But to jeopardize a project which may be.... Let's say it's a pipeline. Let's say it's decided to build a pipeline into some new part of the province to bring in natural gas as a resource for development, and that you have a number of investments that turn on that — and timetables and everything else. You really can't have, late in the game, a decision in question as to whether the route's a go. I just think that that has to give way to the urgency of the scheme. You have to be able to do it.
I don't subscribe to the view that you don't have a public planning and consulting process when you're planning highways and routes of that kind in the normal course of things. I know that that's certainly what the minister intends for the Island Highway, which so many of us on both sides are committed to.
MR. SIHOTA: I know all of us are committed to an Island highway. I think those of us on this side of the House would like to see it built — and quickly. But that's another debate.
[ Page 1913 ]
HON. MR. REID: Hear, hear!
MR. SIHOTA: I see the Minister of Tourism's here — and the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael). Boy, I could tell them about all sorts of other highways that I think ought to be built in this province as well, particularly in the riding of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. That's also another debate for another time. I'm pleased to see that there are some expenditures in the riding right now, on the Malahat.
I understand that concern. Obviously, I don't think any one of us wants to frustrate the construction of these types of facilities. I think that's fairly put. The minister makes an interesting point when he says he believes that this type of public consultation will happen in any event, through the Ministry of Highways or any other ministry — for example, the Ministry of Energy, which may be involved in pipelines, or through B.C. Rail, which is railways. From what the minister is saying, lie seems to indicate that it's the government's wish, if not the government's policy, that these types of hearings go on well in advance of the construction of the highway or railway. Given that expression of policy, and wanting to do it outside the purview of the act.... It's somewhat surprising to me that one would want that policy specifically exempt from the act. In fact, I think one would want to send a signal to the ministries involved that they have to have some type of public hearing. I think all of us can understand that while we look at the highway as a stretch, the property owner affected only looks at the property that's going to be taken away from him or her, and will quickly come to the realization that this section does not apply.
It seems to me that there was another way to go on this. I should say, before I get to that, that I tried to research this, and could not find one group in the course of my research — and the minister says it was open for exposure with the 1984 legislation — that publicly said it wanted a section like this injected into the legislation. It may well be that someone may have made a representation that wasn't public. In any event, the point is that there's another way of dealing with this. Would it not be — and I guess this is a question to the minister — far superior to have the Ministry of Highways, or the utility or railway company, come before the commission and make its case as to why the inquiry process should be bypassed? Ought not that to be the onus? That way you're sending a very clear signal to the Ministry of Highways, the railway company or the utility that says: "Look, you've got to go through some type of public process." The minister says this is the government's wish in any event. So why not place an onus clause in section 9(2) which would allow for the exclusion of an inquiry upon an appropriate case being made by the utility or ministry involved?
[3:00]
HON. B. R. SMITH: First of all: who asked for this? I am instructed that the minister of the day, Mr. Gardom, got a number of representations directly from expropriating authorities — regional districts and municipalities.
I would also point out that many of the linear developments that we're talking about in this province are not new ones, but are simply widenings of an existing right-of-way. Many of these seldom have any alternative because of the topography of this province, or because of the existence of agricultural land reserves or fish streams, or because of environmental or social factors. So our topography makes linear developments very expensive. Even small variations can result in significantly increased costs.
I emphasize again that there is a planning process — there certainly is in Highways: they advertise well in advance — in which public participation takes place. Maybe at some stage that should be enshrined in statute. but we are looking at trying to have the authority to do these widenings and these projects that have to be done topographically between A and B. They cannot be done A. C, B. There is just no way you can do them that way. Somebody is in the way of that, and we are now trying to do something that we should have done a long time ago, which is to take care of that little person who is in the way and doesn't want to get out of the way and doesn't want to be pushed aside by a jackboot government or a jackboot expropriating authority or whatever it may be. We give him the appraised value in advance and let him argue that he is entitled to more and use the money that has been paid to him to do that, if he wishes.
I guess you and I will have to agree to differ on this. I think that that power is needed for linear development.
MR. SIHOTA: You never hear people on this side of the House using words like "jackboot democracy." Although a good federal Member of Parliament, a friend of mine from Burnaby, I think used that kind of expression in Ottawa the other day.
The question still remains: why not place the onus on the expropriating authority — the highway or the railway company — to come to make its case as to why an inquiry should be put aside, instead of just giving them the carte blanche exclusion from the legislation? Was that option considered, and if so, why was it rejected?
HON. B.R. SMITH: It certainly was considered, because originally the exposure bill included such a provision. But it was felt by the government and by the people who made the representation on behalf of local authorities that it would cause additional expense and delay, that there would be many projects in which no other route was possible, and that the delay in cost would far outweigh the advantages. It is much better to deal fairly, generously and upfrontly with the property owner than to go through some kind of process in which you would end up with delays and probably also with the same route. You would end up with tremendous delays and cost.
MR. SIHOTA: I want to remind the minister that in this act you have the section that allows for cabinet to make exemptions. You have a section 1n this legislation which allows for speedy inquiries. You could have the type of section that I am talking about with respect to onus. A combination of all those three would clearly allow for an expedited acquisition of property or expropriation of property if one was required. So I find some difficulty in accepting the minister's rationale for it. He is quite correct in saying that we will have to agree to disagree. I think this section will clearly be one that we will be voting against.
HON. B.R. SMITH: I agree to disagree.
Section 9 approved on division.
On section 10.
[ Page 1914 ]
MR. SIHOTA: Sorry, I got sidetracked there by some comments from my colleagues.
HON. MR. REID: From your leader.
MR. SIHOTA: It is always nice to have the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) in the House.
In any event, 10(1)(b) says that an inquiry may be denied when the person who requested the inquiry has, at a previous hearing or otherwise, already had substantially the same opportunity to object to the expropriation. I would like to have some explanation as to what circumstances the minister would envision where this would apply. I trust that it does not mean that if an attempt to expropriate fails the first time, the owner would be denied a hearing on the second attempt.
HON. B.R. SMITH: A hearing under the utilities act, I guess, would be one case where there has already been a fullfledged inquiry.
I think those are the main circumstances where it would be expeditious to use that section.
Section 10 approved.
On section 5.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, perhaps we could go back and clean up section 5, where we're going to have to deal with two amendments. I think the second amendment has been distributed to all those who are interested.
Amendments approved.
On section 5 as amended.
MR. SIHOTA: Just for the record I want to thank the minister for making the changes he has with respect to this section, and the efficiency with which this amendment came across so we could deal with it. I appreciate that.
Section 5 as amended approved.
Sections 11 to 14 inclusive approved.
On section 15.
MR. SIHOTA: This section caused me a little bit of concern. I want to draw the minister's attention to 15 (3) with respect to modification of expropriation. If new land is added in modification, the proposal is that the inquiry may be adjourned for a period of two weeks. Am I correct in interpreting that to mean that the owners who will now be included will only have two weeks to make their case?
HON. B. R. SMITH: Yes, you are correct — with power to extend that time.
MR. SIHOTA: I take it that the power to extend that time must show up somewhere else in the legislation — so I'll leave it at that.
The obvious reason I raised it is that I really think two weeks is not an appropriate amount of time to make a case, particularly where the modification is fairly significant. I would be hard-pressed if I were arguing that case, and I think the Attorney-General would agree with me. Any counsel would be hard-pressed to prepare economic loss and damage statements, to come up with an appraiser's report and assessment of property within two weeks. Accordingly, it seems to me that the two-week provision is in the interests of the government or the expropriating authority, but gives the participant, the affected landowner, very little time to prepare and make his case. I don't think there's any disagreement with that.
HON. B.R. SMITH: No, I don't disagree with that. I think the time is probably too short. It's obviously been put in there to get the expropriating authority on with its business. I think I would like to amend that 14 days to 30 days, and then I'll make an appropriate amendment to section 49, which clearly gives the power to extend.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the Attorney-General asking that that section be postponed under standing orders? Or will he just put an amendment to it?
HON. B.R. SMITH: I can just put an amendment through to change the" 14" to "30." It doesn't need anything in writing. I would so move.
On the amendment.
MR. SIHOTA: I can live with that. I would like to thank the Attorney-General for making that amendment.
Amendment approved.
On section 15 as amended.
MR. ROSE: Just so I understand it — I haven't given more than five minutes study to the bill — does this link to clause 24, where there's compensation if it's not accepted...? In other words, a decision is made, and then there is an initial payment, and then there's something like a year to challenge that compensation. If it's not challenged by then, it's deemed to have been accepted.
HON. B.R. SMITH: Oh, no, it's got nothing to do with it.
Section 15 as amended approved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 16.... The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.
MR. SIHOTA: On a point of order, the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey brought up a point that dealt with section 13, and I think that it might have just gone by. I don't know if we can go back to it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall leave be granted?
Leave granted.
MS. MARZARI: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't quite sure where this point should be made, but I believe it is under section 13.
[ Page 1915 ]
[3:15]
Interjection.
MS. MARZARI: It's agreed.
I gather that there are provisions under federal legislation for citizen groups and clubs, perhaps, to come forward and request an inquiry. I am told, once again by Mr. Kohne, that under this section that provision is no longer available to someone in British Columbia if this act is passed. The example, once again, of Sea Island is given. A park was due to be expropriated. That happened to be public land already, but even if it had been private land. I think this point should be heard. A park was under the gun. There was no individual, obviously, to speak for this piece of land, but citizen groups did come forward and object to the expropriation and demand an inquiry. As a result of that, the federal government excluded McDonald Beach Park in the seventies from the airport expansion, I gather.
Under this bill there is no opportunity allowed for civic parties or other types of groups to file complaints. In other words, there's no room there for public objection as opposed to individual objection. Is this the case? If it is the case, can we make provision for people other than individuals to come forward?
HON. B.R. SMITH: Certainly if they're the owners of land, they can come forward as whatever emanation they are — whether they're a society or a corporation or whatever. Neither this bill nor other expropriating bills in this province has recognized a right to challenge a taking for anyone other than the property owner, but there have been some federal expropriations involving parks and so on where there has been that different authority. We're not talking about the approval of an environmental project; we're talking about taking somebody's land. If we were to open that up to interested people, of course, you'd have a very different constipation of process, if I could put it so indelicately. I think it would hold a lot of these things up, and that would reflect on the costs that all the rest of us would pay in increased delay for the project.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General introduces an amendment to section 17.
HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the amendment to section 17 standing in my name on the order paper. See appendix.]
Amendment approved.
Section 17 as amended approved.
Sections 18 and 19 approved.
On section 20.
MR. SIHOTA: Section 20 causes me some concern, with respect to the two years after the filing of the vesting notice. I think this is a little bit like the Sea Island case that others have referred to.
This is a section where, within two years after filing the vesting notice, if the expropriating authority decides that the land is no longer required for its purposes, then of course it can deal otherwise with the land, and must offer the land first to the owner from whom the land was taken, or to that owner's successor. It also. surprisingly, establishes a summary process for determination of the appropriate quantum of money to be paid out.
What concerns me here is that — from one angle, in any event — the value of the property may well increase over that two-year period due to other developments that have nothing to do with the expropriating authority or its purposes for wanting to expropriate. Take the example of a subdivision: over a two-year period, particularly in a volatile and active real-estate market — which I'm sure all of us would like to see again — the adjoining properties may well go up in value over that two-year period. The property that is frozen because of expropriation may also increase in value. Then the expropriating authority decides not to proceed with the acquisition or the development, and it has to offer the property back to the original owner. At that time there will be a summary hearing to determine the market value of the land, and the government may actually find itself in a windfall situation. For example, if it was worth S50,000 at year one and is worth $100,000 at year three. due to a situation that has nothing to do with the development, then as I read this section the original property owner would have to reacquire his property at $100,000. The government would make a $50,000 profit, albeit that it did nothing except sit on the property. That's a gain that would have accrued to the owner if he or she had sat on that property.
It seems to me somewhat obtuse that you could end up with a situation in which the government finds itself in a windfall profit situation simply because it sat on property for two years. I'm just wondering if the Attorney-General would agree with me (a) that that could happen, and (b) that it would be far more appropriate to offer the property back to the original owner at what it was worth at the time of expropriation, or at the time of serving the vesting order, as opposed to the value of the property two years hence.
HON. B.R. SMITH: First of all, most other jurisdictions don't have any such provision. If an expropriation doesn't result in the purpose, the land doesn't have to be given back to the original owner: it's often disposed of. What this does is protect the right of an original owner for up to two years to get his property back.
How can you put the parties on an equal footing by doing what you suggest'? The case that you suggest — that the owner could buy it back at the price at the time of the taking — overlooks the fact that he will have been given the use of that appraised value for the period of the two years, which he could again invest in an expanding market. So he could have it both wav s. Let's say the land was worth $100,000. He has two years to play with that in an expanding market, and then he gets the windfall of his land back. How can you justify giving him that windfall of S100,000 to invest in the expanding market and also giving him his property back at the S100,000 price when it is property is now worth S200,000? How can you have it both ways?
I agree it would maybe be nice to flog the public authority a little bit for expropriating and then not carrying through, but you're giving a double enrichment. I don't agree with you. I'm sorry. I think this is the best way of handling it.
MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to thank the Attorney-General for his wise words of counsel in this chamber, and for taking on my colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew and making the exact argument that we've made about South Moresby
[ Page 1916 ]
and the pricing system that your administration has tried to establish with the federal government. Why should they be doubly enhanced, indeed?
Sections 20 to 27 inclusive approved.
On section 28.
MR. ROSE: My concern, Mr. Chairman, is just the opposite of the windfall profit situation discussed here a moment ago. I think again of the celebrated case of the third runway in the Cora Brown expropriation about 1973-74 on Sea Island in Richmond. Here is a case where the expropriation was made.... If you want me to be right on the clause, I can talk about the gate of expropriation under the clause to make sure I'm in order. The situation there was one in which they were expropriated and went through a tremendous number of appeals. In the meantime, real estate prices skyrocketed. While they were compensated adequately at the date of expropriation, by the time the dust settled they couldn't replace their homes. Suddenly in order to replace the $50,000 home, you needed $100,000.
Is there anything under this section — and there are parts of it that I could talk about in terms of compensation — that deals with the flip side of the argument that we just talked about? Rather than the land being enhanced in value, the procedure and the tangle of the courts and so forth consumed a lot of time, and what was a fair expropriation value — because these people just didn't want to give up their homes — was no longer adequate for them to replace those homes with equal facilities in another location.
HON. B.R. SMITH: That's exactly what this bill does. It prevents that injustice. The moment the notice is filed in the land registry, the appraisal is given, the payment is made, and then the owner who is expropriated can immediately go out and purchase other property, if that's his wish to do so right then, without being the victim of long procedural delays while the market is changing against him. That's the whole purpose for the advance payment in full. That wasn't in the federal statutes for Sea Island, and it isn't now.
MR. ROSE: I think that's a definite improvement.
I'd like to know the Attorney-General's views on the property owner accepting this and forfeiting his claim — or does clause 24 deal with that matter, that he could accept the money; in other words, taking it under protest?
HON. B.R. SMITH: Absolutely. He takes it, can spend it if he wants, still protest and still have a valuation before the compensation tribunal to get a further entitlement. If he's successful, he gets that entitlement and his costs.
Sections 28 and 29 approved.
On section 30.
MR. LOVICK: I just have one question on section 30. Does the basic formula accommodate certain rather peculiar circumstances, namely where the market value determination will not be satisfactory, and where people will suffer as a result? I'm referring specifically to those instances, let's say, where senior citizens perhaps are living in a house that they own, but they would be very hard put to replace if they had to sell their house at market value. In other words, they are quite content and quite happy to be where they are. and only if they were forced to sell their house would they suffer. I'm wondering if there is any other kind of determination for compensation built into this particular section that might introduce a factor of "replacement cost," or some such thing.
HON. B.R. SMITH: No, it's not a replacement value type of assessment under this act. The only way you can get that in this world, as far as I know, is to spell it out in an insurance policy and hope for the best. It's market value, but there is a 5 percent bonus under section 37 for the compulsory nature of the taking. There really is no further satisfaction I can give you for that not-too-hypothetical couple that doesn't want to move. The world is full of such people. Most of us don't, let's face it. We've got a house; we've been there for some years; we don't want to move, and we don't want to have the disruption. The bill tries to make the lot better of such people, but it doesn't answer their plaintive cry that they're being dispossessed and moved, and pushed around by expropriating authorities. We just try to make them do it with more of a smile than they had before.
[3:30]
MR. LOVICK: This begins to look and sound more sinister than I had anticipated. I think the problem is that the 5 percent factor is obviously going to be a big or a large factor, depending on the total value you start with. If we're dealing with a rather small house that isn't worth much money in terms of a market,5 percent is going to have absolutely no kind of salutary effect; it's not going to solve people's problems.
I am suggesting to the Attorney-General, though, that it's not that people simply don't want to move because of their fear of change or some such thing, but rather that they can't afford to move. There are individuals who live in places where roads and highways or bridges are going in and whose property is going to be expropriated necessarily, and the value of their residence is insufficient to in any way replace what they have. The cash value, the market value, is simply not satisfactory. I am suggesting that if government or the state changes the rules of the game such that those individuals are no longer able to comfortably cope with living — in other words, no longer able to maintain their residence — then the onus ought to be on government to provide some kind of compensation that is reasonable and fair.
All that this debate and this section and the minister's answer are revealing is the inadequacy of the market system as a measurement. To be sure, in the great majority of cases the market will do very well, but in this case quite clearly it won't do very well. As the Attorney-General says, we are not talking simply about hypotheses; we are talking about many cases with which he is certainly familiar. The classic ones that come to mind most recently are to do with Annacis crossing. There were all kinds of people there who got caught in that. I am familiar with a few of them on personal terms.
Perhaps we can't rewrite the legislation to accommodate, but let me put the question this way: do we have some appeal mechanism? Do we have anything beyond that rather heavy-handed and I think somewhat simplistic 5 percent solution? As I say, the 5 percent solution doesn't work, because it deliberately discriminates against those who have the least value within their residences and helps those who have more
[ Page 1917 ]
money. It simply exacerbates the problem and worsens the injustice, if you like.
HON. B.R. SMITH: Let me just say what there is for that couple that there wasn't before. I am not saying that it is ideal, but it sure is a lot better. First of all, there is a 5 percent add-on for compulsory taking, which eliminates trying to factor it in a given case, which is very difficult. Secondly, there is the money in advance, which we have spoken about, which they can put to use for investment purposes or to buy other land before the market gets away from them. Thirdly, there is a more generous provision for costs. Fourthly, there are clear moving expenses for them; relocation expenses are paid. Finally, number five, if the valuation is thought not to be a fair valuation, there is an appeal from that decision to the court of appeal.
So they are better off considerably than they have been, and I hope that we are going to have really far fewer of these stories. But they stick with you, and they hound you all your days. I had them in practice, and I had them when I was a mayor too. I remember that. I never forget them, just those few people that were victims of this system. They didn't feel fairly treated. I think we are going to have less in this, but I could never guarantee it. I don't think any human system would ever guarantee you won't have a few.
MR. LOVICK: I thank the Attorney-General for his comments, and I agree that we are probably taking very important steps and that these are all to the good, because certainly the situation will be better than it was heretofore, no question. I think the government is to be commended for the steps it is taking.
My concern, again — and I think it is an important one and a fair one — is whether the existing appeal procedure does not make the same mistake as I have said the 5 percent solution does: namely, that it starts with what is an inadequate mechanism to begin with, the market. If the appeal procedure doesn't mean anything more than whether you've got fair value based on the marketplace dictation, then it isn't solving the problem. That's the whole point of the question: whether in fact the formula itself is satisfactory.
I am merely suggesting, perhaps for future reference, realistically, that what we ought to be looking at is another mechanism that will enable us to deal with precisely these kinds of situations that don't lend themselves to ready solution by the vehicle of the market.
HON. B.R. SMITH: I must agree with you, you know. I mean, you're right. Sure, the market determination is there, and we've added these other things like moving costs and 5 percent to try to make that more palatable. But it still is a market system. You're quite right.
Sections 30 to 38 inclusive approved.
On section 39.
HON. B. R. SMITH: I move the amendment to section 39 that was just filed, which has to do with partial takings. The first amendment allows a deduction where the partial taking is of an interest less than the fee simple. We have in mind there things like sewer easements. Current law provides that an appropriate deduction by way of a percentage of the fee simple interest is made where there are sewer easements that are expropriated.
The second amendment ensures that when the per square foot of value is being calculated for the purposes of subsection (3), that calculation is made on the basis of bare land rather than including the per-square-foot value with the improvements on the land, I know that's crystal clear and will be self-explanatory.
Amendment approved.
Section 39 as amended approved.
On section 40.
MR. SIHOTA: On the clause dealing with injurious affection, as I understand it. the law as it sits right now is what applies. I guess I have some difficulty with that, because the law as it exists right now may change in light of a case that is still before the Supreme Court of Canada. I haven't seen the decision come down. Philosophically. I have a lot of difficulty with recognizing compensation on the basis of injurious affection.
I understand and realize that the ombudsman talked about compensation for injurious affection in his report. He talked about the broadening of the law of injurious affection. I must say outright that this is one area where I have to disagree with the ombudsman in his report and analysis of the 1984 legislation. I think that the concept of injurious affection is somewhat outdated, and we ought not to be simply tying ourselves to the Supreme Court of Canada's musings on this law. It may well allow for third-party landowners to benefit if the law changes substantially.
I would have preferred to see us do away completely with the law of injurious affection and the ability of people to make a claim on that basis. By saying that, I'm sure I'm inviting all sorts of potential political rhetoric directed against me. That's my own feeling of it. I guess to the extent that the law right now is quite narrow and difficult to succeed on, I don't have any problems with it. But if the law were to expand, I sure would.
HON. B.R. SMITH: I think that's right, that we don't know what's going to happen. If there is an expansion, it's probably going to be an expansion in the interests of property owners. It may have to be addressed legislatively if it presents problems. But to try to alter that law when it's of longstanding judicial interpretation — going back to cases like The Queen and Loyselle — seem to us not to be the way to go. We should try to continue the law as the common law is, and then if there is some alteration in that as a result of a new Supreme Court of Canada decision, we should consider dealing with that as law reform. What I will certainly undertake to do is that if a change in the law of injurious affection comes down from the Supreme Court of Canada, I will refer that immediately to the Law Reform Commission of B.C. for their advice as to what, if anything, we should do. That's why we have a law reform commission. You'll notice that each year I've been trying to bring in more law reform commission recommendations. I think that's the function of a law reform commission. I didn't feel that I was in any position to be a law reform commission on injurious affection. So I simply preserved the status quo.
[ Page 1918 ]
Sections 40 to 43 inclusive approved.
On section 44.
MR. SIHOTA: This may be another section where we may agree to disagree. I guess, quite frankly, I feel that if the owner makes out his case and gets an award that's higher than that which was originally provided to him, he ought to receive his costs. I don't agree with pegging it to 115 percent. I think that if you win, you get your costs. As I say, we may agree to disagree on that one, but I think that pegging it at 115 percent certainly invites an argument from the other side that would, first of all, argue that it be less than 100 percent, and secondly, if it was going to be more than 100 percent, that it be less than 115 percent.
I can see myself having a lot of fun with that argument if I was in front of some kind of board or tribunal, knowing that there are cost implications. I just think that if you win your case, you should get your costs. Accordingly, the 115 percent figure is not something I find a lot of comfort in.
HON. B.R. SMITH: I think there has to be some incentive to settlement. There has to be some slight advantage in favour of the house — let's put it that way — because what is being given here now is the appraised value in advance. That is a very major step forward. But if you had a rule such as the general civil litigation rule, where the plaintiff never gets his money in advance — if it's paid into court, he doesn't see it for years sometimes; it sits there, although he gets better pretrial interest than he did in my day.... There's got to be some incentive for him to settle, and 115 percent, I would point out to the member.... If you don't get 115 percent, if you get something less, it's merely a discretion on the part of the tribunal. They don't have to give you your costs. Suppose you got between 100 and 115 percent, which is what you're talking about. They could still give you your costs if they wanted to. They'd have the power to do that, but they don't have to give you your costs. If you get over 115, you get your costs as a right. I think that's fair. I think that balances out with the payments in advance, and it puts some premium on settlement, for sure. You've got to have some premium on that.
MR. SIHOTA: This may be a bit of a tangential comment, but we do have the payment-in clause in the Supreme Court rules. If a decision is made by the court wherein one receives damages less than what was paid in, you of course pay double your costs; but if you get one dollar more.... Certainly in my years as defence counsel for the Insurance Corporation, I went to some great lengths to try to figure out whether or not the rule included interest or not — it's been that close in some cases. You do have that, and if you're one cent over that, you're entitled to your costs. If it's good enough under the Supreme Court rules, it seems to me that it ought to be good enough here. That is a case of advance payment. I agree that, on the other side of the coin, there are double costs, whereas in this case you don't have them. There is an analogous provision in the Supreme Court rules, and all you've got to do is come out one cent ahead.
HON. B.R. SMITH: That's right, but it's different in other ways too. One is that it isn't appendix B you're talking about. Even with the enhancement of that appendix that we made just recently, it still doesn't reimburse you for your lawyer's bill. You're talking about that here and not appendix B; you're talking about reasonable costs, which could be the entire bill of the lawyer — as I read the section — if that was what the tribunal ordered. They are not limited to appendix B, so you've got a better tariff, a tariff which you would dearly love to be taxing on in a Supreme Court action where you were successful by $1. You'd probably do better on this one than you would on appendix B, I'll tell you.
[3:45]
Sections 44 to 46 inclusive approved.
On section 47.
HON. B.R. SMITH: I would move an amendment to section 47 that deals with the case where an owner was paid advance costs and, under section 44(5), had a substantial part of those costs reduced. There could be a favourable balance outstanding in favour of the expropriating authority, and this new section permits this amount to be deducted from compensation, or if all compensation has been added, to be recovered by action in court. So it carries out the intention of the section.
Amendment approved.
Section 47 as amended approved.
Section 48 approved.
On section 49.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have an amendment to section 49.
On the amendment.
HON B. R. SMITH: I'm going to sign the amendment to section 49, which has the effect of permitting the time to be extended beyond 30 days where a party is added to an expropriation, as I undertook to do when we were dealing I think with section 15. It just carries out my promise of a few moments ago to do that.
Amendment approved.
Section 49 as amended approved.
Sections 50 and 51 approved.
On section 52.
HON. B.R. SMITH: The amendment on section 52 allows the chairman to appoint panels of a board consisting of three members to hear any matter that comes before a board. Where a panel has been appointed, the chairman can appoint a member of the panel to preside, and the panel has the jurisdiction, and so on. The reason for all this is that a considerable body of work may come before this tribunal. The panels of three that we envisage seem to be the appropriate size, because that allows for a two-to-one decision. We'll probably have to have a number of part-time members on these panels, as I see it. I think that will be permitted under section 52.
[ Page 1919 ]
Amendment approved.
Section 52 as amended approved.
Sections 53 through 129 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
HON. B.R. SMITH: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 22, Expropriation Act, reported complete with amendments.
MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.
Leave granted.
MR. SPEAKER: And it is an act: Bill 22, Expropriation Act.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 25.
LEGAL PROFESSION ACT
The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
Sections 1 to 42 inclusive approved.
On section 43.
MR. SIHOTA: I promised the government House Leader at least five minutes, because he had to go and perform other functions, so I think we'll deal with section 43.
I'd appreciate some latitude, Mr. Chairman, on the discussion of section 43, because I received one letter from a solicitor who was concerned about the linkage between sections 43, 44 and 58. What I propose to do is simply.... I apologize; I should have forwarded a copy of this letter to the Attorney-General. We probably could have resolved this matter some time ago, but I didn't quite realize we were going to be dealing with this act until a late stage, either today or Friday.... It doesn't really matter; it just explains why I didn't get the letter over to the Attorney-General earlier on.
I'll just quote the letter, because I think it lays it out quite clearly. This member of the Law Society suggests that it may well have been an oversight in the act that section 58(c) allows for an appeal to a "member who is suspended under section 43." When one looks at section 43, it is one of the few sections that uses simply the term "member." Section 44 and other sections refer to "a member or former member."
The act obviously wishes to give the benchers control over members, even if they resign in the face of some type of conduct. But there may be some concern that with the wording of section 58, a former member who is disciplined in some fashion or other may not have the right to appeal.
That's the only submission I've received, and I must confess that I didn't have a chance to take it all the way through.
I see that the drafters of the legislation are here. Just for the record, could they indicate to me whether or not that reasoning makes sense? If not, perhaps an appropriate amendment would be worthwhile.
HON. B.R. SMITH: There's no power to suspend a former member; there is power to disbar a former member. A disbarred former member, according to our reading of section 58, would be a respondent always, and therefore would have the right to go to the court of appeal. I don't think his grounds are correct. He would always be a respondent. He would never be a member suspended under section 43; he would be somebody disbarred, but he would be a respondent.
Sections 43 to 77 inclusive approved.
On section 78.
HON. B.R. SMITH: I have pleasure in moving the amendment to section 78 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
This arose out of the representations made in second reading made by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, in consultation with myself.
On the amendment.
MR. SIHOTA: Just for the record, I do want to thank the Attorney-General for bringing forward that amendment. It is much appreciated, and I think it allows for some latitude within the field of family relations.
HON. B.R. SMITH: I agree. I think it's a much better section as it's been amended than it was before.
Amendment approved.
Section 78 as amended approved.
Sections 79 to 93 inclusive approved.
On section 94.
HON. B.R. SMITH: The amendment to section 94 will simply add a subsection to 94, which will be 94.6. The reason for that is that it covers an impossible employee problem with the Law Society. It would still be an offence for someone in the court registry, or otherwise, who becomes privy to information in the course of a judicial review application, not to disclose that information that would be subject to solicitor and client privilege, and it would be an offence in the event that he did so. This is to give protection to someone in the society who has to handle that information. It's an abundance of caution — an amendment which the Law Society requested. That's all I can say; I can't say that it's of immense moment in the scheme of time.
Amendment approved.
[ Page 1920 ]
Section 94 as amended approved.
Section 95 approved.
On section 96.
HON. B.R. SMITH: Section 96 has exactly the same kind of amendment, which protects the utilization or disclosure or information that's obtained in that manner by an official of the Law Society.
Amendment approved.
Section 96 as amended approved.
Sections 97 to 113 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I have great pleasure in making the motion, and before I do make it, I want to acknowledge on the record the thanks to my opposition critic, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, for the cooperative and positive approach that he has taken on this bill of the society, which has been a bipartisan bill in every way. I thank him for that, and I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 25, Legal Profession Act, reported complete with amendments.
MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
HON. B.R. SMITH: With leave, now.
MR. ROSE: I have no objection to granting leave to this bill. It's non-controversial, and our critic is very happy with it. But as a rule.... We've done two of these this afternoon and we did two last Friday, and they're not controversial and probably not very dangerous, but I'd just like to serve notice that it's not something we're going to do all the time and that we're not really that comfortable with the practice, if we've got time to do it the next day — which would take about 30 seconds anyway. But it does give a person or a group of individuals another stage, if they've got any concerns, to express them. If we rush it through, they don't have that chance.
[4:00]
Leave granted.
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, you've heard the motion. All in favour? Opposed? I declare the motion carried. It is an act: Bill 25, Legal Profession Act.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call report on Bill 19.
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987
MR. SPEAKER: The question is: shall the bill be read a third time now?
Interjections.
AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty days.
MR. GABELMANN: Well, Mr. Speaker, it will be less than 60 days and more than six minutes.
I'm sure that all members would agree that this is an unusual step for there to be any debate whatsoever on third reading of a bill. I must tell the House that we thought long and hard about whether or not we would take the opportunity that does exist in the rules to have a limited debate on the question. Before making a few other comments about this in third reading, I want to say that it's not my intent, nor anyone's on this side of the House, to abuse the rules in any way. If, because this is such an unprecedented activity, we are in any way transgressing on the rules in respect of what we say, I trust the Speaker or other members will draw it to our attention. I, in fact, would welcome that kind of advice as we proceed, given the unusual nature of this debate.
At the conclusion of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I intend to move motion 73, standing in my name on the order paper, in order that we can focus our comments on the issue of delaying third reading of this particular legislation for six months, rather than passing third reading here today.
A few minutes ago in the House, both committee stage and third reading of the Legal Profession Act passed in the matter of five minutes or so. One of the members of the government caucus suggested in a light-hearted way that it would have been nice if we could have done Bill 19 as quickly and as smoothly as Bill 25. My suggestion to him was that if we had gone through the same kind of consultation process in this province in developing Bill 19 as we went through in developing Bill 25 — and others — then we may well have had a much briefer debate than we've been forced to have over the last nearly three months now in respect of this labour legislation.
Our view is that this bill will cause so much problem, so much discord, and will bring results opposite to those suggested by the government as their intent, that it is essential that the bill not be proceeded with. At this stage of the debate there are really only two ways left for this legislation not to proceed. One is for the motion that we're proposing today that the bill not be read today but rather six months' hence; the other is that the government, in its wisdom, could choose not to proclaim sections of the bill until some additional process is undergone.
I'm not so naive that I expect the government members to vote with us on this particular motion this afternoon. To do so, I think, would be for them an admission that they might have been wrong, and that's very difficult for people to do. It's particularly difficult for governments to do.
We make the motion because we believe that that would be the appropriate way for this Legislature to indicate that it understands the consequences of the passage of Bill 19. But should the motion fail at the conclusion of this debate — as I anticipate it will — I want to say to the government that I hope they consider seriously the final option that yet remains to them, which is the option of not proceeding by cabinet order to proclaim any or all of the sections of the bill. It may be that
[ Page 1921 ]
there are some sections that could be proclaimed. It could be that there are others which the government wants to proceed with despite good advice. There are others that are in yet another category, that would reflect the views expressed in the letter that the Minister of Labour sent to the Premier on February 28; views that suggested that some matters were of such concern that they needed to be delayed, studied and fully examined prior to any legislative initiative.
There are a variety of options yet remaining to the government, all under the ambit of delaying proclamation. If this motion that we will move does fail, I just want to say to the government that it will redound to their credit if they make a decision to take some time over the next three or four or five months or so to hold the kinds of discussions with all of the affected parties that they've held, for example, with the Legal Profession Act, and with many other bits of legislation governing particular events in our society. If they take that action, there will no doubt be a few cries of victory: "We've beaten the government." No doubt some of that will happen. Realists in this province know that those kinds of comments will be made. No doubt I too will say something of that kind about how we're pleased and delighted that the government has seen the wisdom of their ways, and all that kind of stuff. But that's a two-day, or probably a one-day, wonder.
The long-term benefit to the government, but more importantly the long-term benefit to this province, will be quite significant — not to exaggerate the point — if the government does make a decision to delay and to go through that process of consultation that is so important. You cannot in any endeavour in our society.... In my view and in the view of our party, in the view of the labour movement, in the view of many, many neutrals in our society, and in the view of many people on the management side, you cannot develop laws that so closely govern people's lives without allowing them some say in the development of those laws. We have made that point repeatedly. I don't need to canvass all of those arguments again. That consultation, that process, has not occurred. As a result of that, if nothing else, this law cannot work.
The Premier is fond of saying frequently that we just have to give it a chance. The only way this bill would ever have been given a chance is if it had been developed in concert and in consultation. That has not happened; therefore it has no opportunity to be given a chance. I'm not sure the government understands that. And I'm not sure that the advice the government is getting from some of the people who are being asked for advice in this matter is particularly good. Given what I've learned over the last few weeks, in some cases the advice is absolutely inaccurate. Not to name particular individuals, this advice comes from people who are close to the government, people who will be involved directly and indirectly in the establishment of the mechanisms that flow from this legislation. Many of these people, including people in the legal profession, apparently do not fully understand all of the implications of this legislation. I know I'm being a bit obscure, but I'm doing that deliberately in terms of the people I'm talking about. I'm sure the minister has some idea who I mean. But it's clear that advice going from those sources to the Premier's office is flawed, inasmuch as it is not based on either accurate or appropriate readings of the effect of Bill 19.
During the course of the debate in this House over the last few months, we saw numerous examples of situations that we said would develop as a result of enacting this bill. The minister replied by saying no, that was not likely to happen; he didn't believe it would happen; he hoped it wouldn't happen — or variations on that response. Yet on further consultation with people in the business, people who will make a living appearing before the Industrial Relations Council, it's clear that some of the scenarios sketched by members on this side of the House, during committee stage in particular, are in fact more accurate than the government knows or cares to admit. It's for those kinds of reasons, Mr. Speaker, that we feel the government, whether through this proposed hoist motion or through a decision not to proclaim, should find a way to go through a process so that everybody is in agreement with what this bill is going to do.
Once there is an agreement about the effect of this bill, then the government can make up its own mind about proceeding or not proceeding. Governments have that power and that authority, it's appropriate in a democratic society that they do have that power and authority, and the consequences will have to be paid by the government. That's fair enough. But it's clear that even in the course of the last two and a half to three months an agreement about the impact of this particular legislation has yet to be reached.
I want to cite a couple of examples — two in particular. One flows from the suggestion in the minister's letter to the Premier of February 28 that the issues involved in construction were so complex, so difficult and so important that any legislative initiative respecting construction unions and construction employers needed to be delayed to allow a proper consultation process to take place. We have suggested, as have construction unions, that the unionized construction industry in this province has only several years to live; that in two or, more likely, three years there will be a skeleton, at best, of a unionized construction industry as a result of several of the changes that we've been debating.
[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]
The government says no, that's not the case. The government says that we're not right. Yet repeated conversations and discussions with people who understand what the arguments will be in front of the IRC in respect of changes indicate that we are right — or at least, there is overwhelming evidence that we might well be right. Given that, the question about what the government's intention is in respect of the existence of a unionized construction industry in this province needs to be examined before a bill like this is proceeded with. If the government does not want to eliminate the unionized construction industry, then it needs to have a look at what it has done, discuss with the affected parties the implications of these changes, and, I would suggest, come back with further changes. If, on the other hand, the government does want to deunionize construction, then the government should proceed and my arguments should be ignored.
I'm not convinced that a majority of the government caucus does in fact want to eliminate the unionized construction industry. I think there is knowledge on the part of most, if not all, members of the government caucus that the unionized construction industry plays, and has played for many years, an important and valuable role in our society, in terms of education programs, training, safety, pension plans and a whole variety of other issues, not to mention the incredible difference in productivity between union and nonunion in the construction sector. So I suspect that there is a large body of opinion, and probably a majority in the government caucus, that would not want to achieve the result that
[ Page 1922 ]
appears to flow from this legislation, which is deunionization of the construction industry.
[4:15]
It's for those kinds of reasons that we make this appeal. This appeal, incidentally, is being made not in anger, not in hyperbolic or extravagant statements, but rather, quietly and, in fact, more in sorrow than in anger. And it's being made seriously, because I think it's clear to members on this side that some of these points have not been fully grasped by members on the other side.
I want to talk a little bit about the forest industry as well as the construction industry. There was absolute surprise on the part of many government members when we asserted during the course of this debate that changes, particularly changes to sections 25 and 29 of the bill — 37 and 53 of the Code — could have, and no doubt in some areas would have, the effect of beginning the deunionization of the contracting industry in the forest sector in this province. As a result of that concern being increasingly felt by a wider variety of people out there in the forest industry.... I would like to make the same argument here: that I suspect the government has no intention of bringing in a law that would mean that the contractors who work for the majors, particularly in the TFLs on the coast, should become deunionized. I don't think that the government sat down before writing this law and said to themselves: "We want the Frank Bebans of the world, and all of the contractors who work for the majors, to become deunionized." I'm sure that was not their intent. Yet clearly there is a legitimate concern out there that this may well be the intent of these changes.
There's a telegram that I think must be read into the record, Madam Speaker. It was sent on June 8 — two weeks ago — by the Truck Loggers' Association. I'm not sure if it's had much publicity; frankly, I'm not sure it's had any. The president of the truck loggers is Dan Hanuse. I believe Dan Hanuse is now living in the Courtenay area. He's a former candidate for Social Credit. He ran in the 1975 general election in the old constituency of Comox against Karen Sanford. He's a long-time active Social Credit member. I believe he's been on the executive of the B.C. Social Credit Party, and is a fellow whom most of us in this House have known over the years in one way or another.
His politics certainly are not ours; no one can argue about that. His politics are not the politics of the IWA. His concerns, obviously, are not the same as the IWA in respect of their view of this legislation. But he telegrams the Premier as follows:
OUR ASSOCIATION HAS SOME REAL CONCERNS OVER THE HURRIED PASSAGE OF BILL 19. THERE ARE SOME ASPECTS OF THE BILL THAT OUR ASSOCIATION HAS COME TO HAVE SOME REAL CONCERNS WITH AS TO WHAT CAN HAPPEN TO THE INDEPENDENT LOGGING SECTOR. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF THIS FEAR HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. WE APPRECIATE THAT THE ELECTED HAVE A DUTY TO GOVERN, BUT WE SEE NO POSSIBLE EMBARRASS MENT TO YOUR GOVERNMENT TO FIND A COURSE TO SLOW DOWN THE PASSAGE. OVER THE PAST SEVEN MONTHS OUR EXECUTIVE HAVE ENDEAVOURED TO GET AN AUDIENCE WITH YOURSELF AND YOUR CABINET. SO FAR NO LUCK. THE MATTER WE HAVE WANTED TO DISCUSS WITH YOU WILL NOW BE IMPACTED BY A SECTION OF BILL 19. THE CONTRACTOR CLAUSE OF THE FOREST ACT REGULATION NEEDS SOME AMENDMENTS TO ENSURE THAT THE PASSAGE OF THIS SECTION OF BILL 19 WILL NOT DESTROY THE INDEPENDENT ENTREPRENEURIAL LOGGING CONTRACTOR. WE URGE YOU TO DELAY THE PASSAGE UNTIL WE HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS AND EXPLAIN THESE FEARS TO YOURSELF AND YOUR CABINET. WE ARE AT YOUR DISPOSAL. DAN HANUSE, PRESIDENT
When arguments of that kind were made during the course of the debate, Madam Speaker, the government's response was, in effect, that the concerns were unfounded; that they were not realistic; that we were crying wolf, and so were others; and that others had been stampeded into crying wolf about the possible effects of Bill 19.
In fact, I think it's a little more complicated than that. I think some of the people out there who are now beginning to understand the effects of this legislation are starting to recognize that the way in which this bill will be interpreted by the Industrial Relations Council and in the courts is such that organizations such as member companies of the Truck Loggers' Association, who are unionized on this coast, will in fact be out of business.
Let me quote from Colin Beale's industry letter. This is the June 5, 1987, issue, which talks about a variety of issues normally canvassed in Beale's Letter, relating to a lot of the conflicts small operators find themselves in with the majors and government. Quoting from Colin Beale:
"This same operator" — an independent truck logger — "was told earlier by the same" — unnamed — "major forest company: 'If you want to work for us, you must be a certified union operation.'
"I now believe what your newsletter predicted six months ago: that the majors plan to squeeze the small operators out of business, or keep rates so low they'll be forced to start up non-union operations to survive. Our company, like others, has had rates continuously eroded since 1981."
These are the amounts that are paid by the majors to the contractors for doing their logging.
"'We supported majors during tough economic times. Now we see a recovery taking place, but licensees have forgotten the support contractors gave them in the past. We are being asked to hold the line or accept a measly 2 percent on base rates that at best are break-even with no profit or fair depreciation allowance.
"'Our company has had its contract rate arbitrarily reduced by 35.4 percent over the past four years. Now it's been indicated to us the major corporations don't have the strength to break the union, but the contractors caught in the middle do. We've also been told if we can't operate at rates being offered, we should close down and start up again as a non-union operator."'
So you have the majors telling the contractors: "If you can't do the logging for these reduced amounts of money that we're giving to you, then our suggestion to you is that you close down and start up again as a non-union contractor." That advice is being given to them: given the changes that are included in Bill 19, that will then be available.
I don't believe that the government — at least I don't want to believe, and I'm putting my most non-partisan, most tolerant hat on when I say this — understands these implications, nor do I think the government really would like to have the kind of chaos that would exist in the forest industry, on this coast in particular, if all of the contractors went nonunion, simply in terms of safety issues if not the economic issues. Yet that's clearly the advice now being given to
[ Page 1923 ]
contractors. It's a concern that the truck loggers have. It underlies the concern that Dan Hanuse expresses. If his organization finds that it has to compete on a non-union basis, it will soon find that the good operators are out of business.
Bill Moore, as I'm sure most members of the House know, is a Social Credit Party member who has campaigned against me in elections in North Island. He operates one of the safest and most productive logging camps, as a contractor to Western Forest Products, on northern Vancouver Island — just out of Winter Harbour. He will not be able to compete with non-union operators coming in and undercutting the wage, sliding on the safety issues, and doing all of the kinds of things that you have to do to try to keep your costs down. Guys like Bill Moore, who have been in operation for 40 years — since World War II — will obviously find themselves unable to bid effectively against companies coming in and operating non-union.
The ability of the IWA to negotiate the kind of clause that they would need to protect them in these circumstances will not exist, given other sections of the legislation. So we're going to find those kinds of impacts. Most of these contractors are going to find themselves on the outs as a result of this bill. It won't happen immediately; it's going to take a few years before the impact begins to show itself. It's going to take a few years until some contracts expire and we see the competition beginning to develop with non-union companies. That won't happen overnight.
The people who are going to be hurt, ironically, apart from the workers who have worked in many cases for decades for these companies, are the owners of these companies, who are, for the most part, Social Credit members and supporters. That's one of the real ironies of the government's determination to push through this particular legislation.
Bill Moore went public. He wrote a letter that was published in the Vancouver Province, if not somewhere else. I don't know if Dan Hanuse went public, but certainly he sent a telegram to the Premier with copies to us. Clearly people of that kind who are making these kinds of comments must be telling the government something that it's not hearing, if it's determined to proceed. That's something that I find real difficulty in understanding.
I just have a few final comments, Madam Speaker. During committee stage, I referred to a report that was done by the Business Council of B, C. In February 1986. It related to the whole question of our labour relations and investment. There has been a lot of discussion about the effect of our labour relations climate in British Columbia on investment itself. I quoted from this particular press release — it's not so much a press release as a bulletin — which summarized the report. The study was done by the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development in 1985. Clearly there were indications then that the perceptions of our labour relations climate abroad and in the rest of Canada — and, curiously, its perception here in British Columbia — is very different from the reality. The reality is one thing. The Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development said that and the Business Council said that, so it's not just New Democrats and trade union radicals saying it.
The government and the business community are saying that the reality of our labour relations in this province is that it is much more harmonious, much more effective and far less disruptive than is commonly believed. There are all kinds of reasons for that false perception, and I'm not going to do a dissertation on that at this time. But the fact is, clearly there was an indication by government and business that the perception was wrong; the reality was something different.
That report was then followed.... Without saying too much of what I shouldn't say in terms of confidentiality, the reports that the Business Council and the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development did formed the basic underpinnings for the strategy of the Ministry of Labour following that report in 1986. During the period between January February 1986 and the summer of ' 86, the Ministry of Labour clearly was embarking upon policies and a policy direction that were based on those reports — based on that knowledge that we were better than we say we are and that we really did have something to build on in this province: not only good, sound industrial relations, but the perception that we have good, sound industrial relations.
[4:30]
At the same time — not entirely coincidentally, but partly so — the B.C. Federation of Labour, for its part, embarked upon a new course as well. The course has been talked about frequently. It was to attempt to establish links between the Business Council and the Vancouver Board of Trade, to find ways of dealing with this perception, to find ways to build upon the reports of the Business Council and the Ministry of Industry, and to put into place links that could help to improve not only the perception but even the reality of our labour relations.
Someone known to every member of this House, whom I will not name — a very prominent British Columbian not of our political persuasion — was saying to me the other day that developing good industrial relations is a little like developing a good marriage. You don't develop good industrial relations by having some third party lay down a law which says you are going to love each other and live happily ever after. What this gentleman said to me was that if you want a marriage to work, you have to work at it every day, and you have to work at it slowly, bit by bit, step by step, issue by issue.
It's precisely the same in industrial relations. We were making those steps in British Columbia. We had a bit of a setback in the fall with the difficulty of the forest industry dispute — the first in a decade: the first major dispute for a long time, if you don't count the construction dispute, which didn't go on for too long. a year or so earlier. It was a dispute which really was about jobs and job security; the kind of thing that comes along perhaps once in a decade, the kind of thing that those of us who live in a free society are going to have to understand will come along — the kinds of issues that can't be resolved by painting the issue grey, by taking the black and white and saying we're going to saw it off in the middle and make it grey. It wasn't that kind of issue, and it couldn't be resolved in that way. It was not the kind of issue that could be resolved by some pretty eminent people in our society at the time. The only way it could be resolved was to delay. It was a very unusual issue.
Simply because that kind of once-in-a-decade issue came along, and simply because it happened to come along at a time when there was a new Premier and we were into an election campaign, there was this incredible overreaction, one which essentially said: "The step at a time working-out of this particular marriage is not good enough. We're going to solve it all at once in one fell swoop." That doesn't work in a marriage, and it won't work in industrial relations. Just asserting that isn't going to make it so.
[ Page 1924 ]
Unfortunately, unless the government takes the advice to slow down this process at this point, it appears as if the only way we're going to learn that it can't work and won't work is by living through the period of time it takes to demonstrate that it can't and won't work. It's similar to the experience we had to go through between 1968 and 1972 with the Mediation Commission. Comparable issues, comparable reaction; assertions in the early days that the bill could not and would not work, and it didn't. But it set back labour relations.... I was going to say a decade, but actually I think you could argue that the introduction of that bill in 1968 set back industrial relations by virtually 18 years. It wasn't until the last year or two that we began to repair the damage caused in 1968-72. I remember it personally, because from 1970 to 1972 I worked at the B.C. Federation of Labour as the legislative director. It was my job to explain to them the laws and legislation that governed workers. I used to travel around the province holding educationals about various things, whether it was unemployment insurance or workers' compensation or the labour relations act of the day; also, of course, the Mediation Commission Act.
Following that period of intense almost warfare — political warfare, certainly, between labour and government and between labour and management — as a result of that legislation, labour and management hardly ever talked to each other. At the B.C. Federation of Labour, I remember, we did not even talk to the then Employers' Council, the predecessor of the Business Council. Except on very rare and secret occasions that no one would ever know about did leadership of either organization sit down and chat with each other about issues, because if you were caught having a meeting with the other guy, you would be dead. The politics were such that you couldn't survive the membership attacks if you were caught fraternizing with the enemy. That is not how good industrial relations are built.
It took from that period of roughly 1970 until 1985-86 before the warriors of that day were either gone or had mellowed, or had changed their view and come to recognize that you can't survive in industrial relations without discussion about more than just the contract negotiations. We were beginning to make that progress here in the middle eighties, and just when we were beginning to get some good, firm steps on the ladder, what happens? Without consultation, without discussion, without any participation of the parties, we get Bill 19, which, as I've said before — and as others have said in and out of this Legislature — blew all of those tentative steps right out of the water.
I hope it's not another 18 years before those tentative steps are once again allowed to be made. The history is that it took that long last time. I suspect there's more maturity and a better understanding of history, so it may not take 18 years. But I will tell you, if this law is allowed to proceed and goes into effect, and if it is attempted to be foisted on people for two or three years, it will be at least a decade before once again there will be leadership in labour and management in this province who will be allowed by their members to make those tentative steps, as were being made here in the eighties.
I'm not sure that that whole concept that I've been trying to talk about in the last five or ten minutes is really very well understood by many people. I would like to believe that most members of this Legislature do understand that. I would like to believe that most members of this Legislature understand that Bill 19 is in many ways even more damaging and more dangerous than was the Mediation Commission Act of 1968, because that bill essentially dealt with only one issue: the issue of compulsory arbitration, a mandated settlement forced on parties who could not agree to contract resolution. This bill does that in a more sophisticated form. But it does a lot more, and it's the "lot more" that we've spent a lot of time talking about over the last three or four weeks in committee stage. The "lot more" includes the points that I began this discussion with: the fact that in many sectors of our economy there will be a process of deunionization; in other sectors of our economy the natural evolution towards organizing will be delayed; the economy will be affected in a way that is far more profound than any of the effects that were contemplated by the Mediation Commission Act. It's for those reasons that the intensity of anger is greater now than it was then.
Prior to getting involved in this debate, I reviewed all the clippings from '68 through '72, because I wanted to get some sense of what was being said then, compared to what's being said now. My own reading of it is that the intensity was not nearly as defined or as strong then as it is now. My own sense of it is that at that time, the predicted results of that bill....
I see the light, and I'm almost finished.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just wanted to ask, hon. member, if you were the designated speaker.
MR. GABELMANN: In the event that I run a minute or two over, yes. I'd not intended to go into that designation, but here we are.
In that period of '68 to '72, there was not the kind of widespread reaction to that legislation, nor was there the intensity or bitterness of feelings — in the early days. It developed. As the campaign developed and as the Teamsters went to the Mediation Commission and got royally done in — to use a parliamentary word — the level of anger began to grow in those days.
The intensity that exists now in this province about this bill is unlike any I have ever experienced in this province, and not just in labour relations; I also think of some of the intensity of feeling by a variety of groups against us when we were in government.... I have never in any of those times seen the depth and width of feeling — by that I mean the variety of groups in our society who feel so strongly about this. We've got mainstream churches and non-mainstream churches coming out and saying to the government: "Please recognize what you're doing." We've got the newspaper editorial writers and columnists. We've got former public servants, senior public servants, Graham Leslie being the most obvious and the most widely mentioned.
I know for a fact, and so do members of the government, that we have other senior public servants in the employ of the government who are giving the same advice, because of their perception about what the impact of this legislation will be. I know for a fact that the government knows there are senior people in the Social Credit Party and close to the Social Credit Party around this province who have connections with business and with other areas of society, and who are saying to the government: "Back off. What you are doing is wrong." They're saying that the public reaction is such that you cannot possibly succeed with this legislation. The public reaction is such that the Premier's request that it just be allowed to work is not a reasonable request.
I don't know that we in this province have ever experienced a time — I don't know of a time; there may have been — when there has been so much advice about one piece of
[ Page 1925 ]
legislation coming to government from every corner of the political spectrum — every comer but one, I guess; the one I would describe, if I were in impolite circles, as the loony right. But here one has to be more circumspect.
[4:45]
When you look at it, apart from members of this Legislature, who is it who's standing up strongly, saying: "Proceed, proceed, proceed"? It's the right-to-work contractors. It's the ICBA. It's a few contractors from the Fraser Valley, for the most part. It really isn't anybody else, except members of the back bench doing what good back-benchers do, which is to support their government in the hope of getting into cabinet soon. But that's all.
Interjection.
MR. GABELMANN: There may be a few back-benchers who are not hoping to get into cabinet; to them, I apologize.
When you look around and carefully analyze where the push is coming from for early and quick implementation of this legislation, it's clearly and unequivocally from members of this House — I make no bones about that. It's also from the right-to-work contractors in the Fraser Valley. As far as I can see, it's from no one else in this province. The Business Council has sort of got into line, and they're saying: "It's not so bad. We can make it work." They're not saying: "It's the greatest law we're ever likely to have. Full speed ahead." You have to listen carefully to what people say. Support for something may not really be support, if you listen carefully to the words or read between the lines. From my discussions with people in the industries of our province — primarily the major industries, because they're so dominant in North Island — it's clear to me that there is an overwhelming feeling on the part of these people, almost all of whom are Social Credit and Tory nationally, that the bill should not be proceeded with. They say that while they like some of the things that may come from it, they recognize that unless labour is part of the team, it can't work.
With that, Madam Speaker, I just want to repeat to the House what I said earlier during this discussion, and that is that for a day or two there will be some shouts of "We won!" if the government backs down at this point and accepts our motion. But for years to come, there will be a recognition that the government acted wisely. I think many in this province would argue that W.A.C. Bennett lasted as long as he did because he always had the capacity to leave a door open on every issue, and whenever he felt it necessary politically, he managed to find that a second look could indeed lead to a better solution. I guess it's in our political interests that the government doesn't do that. But it's in the interest of British Columbia, it's in the interest of people who work for a living in this province, and it's in the interest of every single citizen that that second look be taken now.
With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to move Motion 73 standing in my name on the order paper: that the motion for third reading of Bill 19, Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987, be amended by deleting the word "now" and adding the words "on this day six months hence."
DEPUTY SPEAKER: You've all heard the motion. Shall the amendment pass?
Interjections.
MR. LOVICK: Excuse me, Madam Speaker, but your question confuses us. Is the amendment our hoist?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, it's now debatable.
On the amendment.
MR. LOVICK: We on this side were certainly saying: "Yes, it shall pass." The other side was saying nay? All right. I hope you'll pardon that facetious beginning, Madam Speaker. It's difficult to know precisely what tone and temper one ought to approach this debate in.
I certainly won't begin my remarks by saying that I am pleased to stand to support this amendment, this hoist motion, because obviously, one doesn't any longer take much pleasure in this. A number of us have spoken at great length about Bill 19. I estimate that I have probably been on my feet for some ten hours, and I won't pretend that it has been enjoyable. Indeed, j'ai discuté ce projet de loi en français aussi — I've also spoken about this bill in French, to Radio-Canada, and that too was not much fun. I say that in all seriousness, because we like to think that we on this side have indeed presented the kind of case that ought to have succeeded. I would venture to say that in terms of logic, evidence and, may I call it, crass politics we have presented good, clear and sufficient reasons for (a) modifying this bill radically, (b) withdrawing the bill, or (c) at least delaying the bill. I say that in as non-partisan and objective a manner as I can.
I think the reason I struggle when we're at this point in a hoist motion is that I am not sure what it would take to convince this government. What arguments will work? What can one do to in fact persuade this government that its course is wrong-headed, misguided and fraught with peril? I don't know what arguments will work. The only thing I am tempted to rely on now, Madam Speaker, is some irony, sarcasm and satire. Again, I realize that that will be much too subtle for probably some 40 percent of members opposite, so I won't engage in that.
Interjection.
MR. LOVICK: Not you, Madam Minister, but some others.
Let me just suggest in a very crass, blatantly political kind of way that there is one very compelling reason for supporting this hoist motion from the government's point of view. Let me tell them a little story that they may have not perceived in the hurly-burly of debate and discussion that's gone on in the last three or four months. The government does not have a very good track record in the public's mind. The government has not received too many accolades or bits of applause. Curiously enough, where the government has been recognized as demonstrating some intelligence, sensitivity and rationality is when that self-same government has said: "Yes, we agree to amend X legislation." Every time this government has agreed to an amendment proposed by this side of the House, or proposed by interested parties outside the House, the government has been praised. If the government wants to restore its own credibility, if it wants to improve its standing in the public's mind, we are providing you now with that opportunity.
Hoist this motion, accept the logic of the case we present, and you will probably come out ahead of the game. Demonstrate to us that you are not short-sighted or vindictive, or that
[ Page 1926 ]
you are not declaring war on organized labour. Who knows, you may indeed live to fight another day as government. I'm not sure that that is the case, but I wonder if in fact this might save you.
On a more serious note, Madam Speaker, I want to suggest that probably the best argument for the hoist motion is to turn the proposition around and say: "What is the compelling and urgent reason for the bill in the first place?" And the answer is just that there isn't one. We have never seen any evidence whatsoever to suggest that B.C. requires this legislation now, nor, incidentally, have we seen any evidence to suggest that it requires this kind of legislation even in the longer term. There are no compelling reasons. Indeed, the compelling reasons all would seem to be on the other side. What is compelling and urgent is to withdraw that legislation, or to put it on hold, so that the province can begin the process of rebuilding, of licking its wounds, because right now there is no question we are suffering. The social fabric has been rent, pretty obviously, and it's been rent by precisely this kind of legislation. The sad, painful irony of it all is that the government's ostensible reasons — its stated reasons — for Bill 19 are not at all served by Bill 19. If anything, the contrary is the case.
Let me just demonstrate that, if I can, by quoting some of the crucial sections of the bill that I think will make my point quite effectively. Refer to section 18 of Bill 19, or section 27 of the revised Code, where we get what is the clearest statement, I think, of the reasons for the bill — at least the reasons that have been adduced and presented to us. I'm suggesting that what we get in each of those reasons is a bill that in effect will have the opposite effect of the stated reason. For example, we are told in the bill that the objective of the legislation is to secure and maintain "industrial peace" and to further "harmonious relations between employers and employees." I would submit to the minister, through you, Madam Speaker, that we have done more to exacerbate labour relations since Bill 19 has been on the table than to improve them. In short, the opposite effect.
Similarly, the second main section, the second justification for the bill....
Interjection.
MR. LOVICK: I pause here for a moment to respond parenthetically to the comment by my colleague from Vancouver East, who suggests that the lexical mastery of members opposite is perhaps not sufficient. I don't think it is at issue; I am sure people know what "exacerbate" means.
The second clause, as I was saying, Madam Speaker, is that the other ostensible declared purpose of the bill is to improve the practices and procedures of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely chosen representatives of employees. Again, I would suggest — I believe we have demonstrated this time after time after time, and the testimony in Hansard is very clear — that it will have the opposite effect. What Bill 19 effectively amounts to is the end of free collective bargaining as that term is customarily known and universally understood. This bill is not compatible with free collective bargaining. I think we've demonstrated that case rather effectively; and quite frankly, I would be willing to challenge any members opposite to deal with those elaborate cases we presented in the course of the debate and to show us where we are wrong in that assertion.
One more clause will make the point, I think, and will be sufficient. The third stated reason for Bill 19, as given here in section 27(l)(c): "promoting conditions favourable to the orderly and constructive settlement of disputes between employers and employees or their freely chosen trade unions." We are suggesting that this is not to show us an orderly solution to problems; rather, the recourse is to a third party, to an intervention on the part of government as a matter of course. We are suggesting again that that is not compatible with the intention stated in this section.
In other words, Madam Speaker, as I have been suggesting, the plan or proposal in the bill as presented to us will have the opposite effect of what it is claimed to be accomplishing. The plan will not yield labour peace, stability, or any kind of improved investment climate in this province. Instead, the plan — to paraphrase Burke; I love to quote Burke to conservative governments — will yield nothing but discontent, disorder and disobedience.
[5:00]
If anybody thinks that Burke is somehow not terribly compelling as a witness — because, after all, he was writing or speaking on the eve of the American Revolution 213 years ago — let me give you a more updated version of the same case. Let me quote you somebody else whose argument may be a little more compelling, somebody who says as follows: "Any law without the support or at least the acquiescence of the majority of those whom it purports to affect will inevitably be opposed, and this opposition will guarantee in this case the failure of the larger objective." Madam Speaker, that statement was not written in 1774; that statement was written in February 1987. The author of the statement was the hon. Minister of Labour.
Surely that case made by the minister has been home out and substantiated by all the events of the past month. We have had discord; we have had strife; we have had declarations that we will not live with this legislation but indeed will boycott this legislation. What more evidence does the government require, then, to recognize that what it is doing will simply not work?
In short, Madam Speaker, what we have here is bad legislation: legislation that will worsen rather than improve the relations between citizens in our province.
The hoist motion is again, I suggest, to give the government an opportunity to come out of this looking somewhat better than it has thus far. Our intention is not to hoist the government, to use an older meaning of that terminology; it is to save the government from being hoist by its own petard, if I can use the old meaning in a context we can all understand. The government is going to reap the whirlwind, I am afraid.
Madam Speaker, I must be ingenuous and declare clearly and emphatically that my feelings on this bill and on the hoist motion are mixed. The crass politics and the partisan advantage agenda, on the one hand, lead me to say: "Go for it, you guys. Run with this thing, government. Do it. Get out there and play some kind of natural game where you're bound and determined you're going to have your way, regardless of what people are saying." Because I think, frankly, that will be to the advantage of members on this side of the House. But there's another side, and the other side is fortunately perhaps more compelling; namely, the good of this province — the commonwealth.
What are we going to do by passing this legislation? As my colleague from North Island suggested, we are sowing the seeds for another ten years, at least — maybe 18 years —
[ Page 1927 ]
of discord. We were standing on the threshold of a whole new era of beneficial labour relations in this province. Now, because of Bill 19, we're standing on the brink. That's a shame. It needn't have happened.
What we do in some hours, whether it is today, tomorrow or in the next few days.... What we do in that short time, I'm afraid, Madam Speaker, we're going to have years to regret. I hope that the government will listen carefully to the arguments we're presenting and recognize that the hoist motion isn't just to gain points for our side, but rather is to provide this government, and indeed the people of the province, with some opportunity to do something that is intelligent, rational and non-confrontational for a blessed change.
MS. A. HAGEN: Madam Speaker, we have concluded in the last few days the most exhaustive examination of a bill that has ever occurred, to my knowledge, in this House. I think all have agreed on both sides of the House that that debate was a substantive debate, where the arguments and examinations of the principles and the clauses of the bill were developed by this side of the House and responded to, particularly by the hon. minister, with great attention to the bill's import. We're now ready for its final reading, in a climate that has developed out of that extensive debate and out of the knowledge which not only we in this House but the broad public have gained as we have developed the whole rationale for looking at its faults and failings.
The goals of the bill were clearly stated, and they're goals that we have supported: fairness in the workplace, long-term labour relations stability and increased investor confidence. However, when we took at the results of our debate of the bill, we have grave reservations, as has the body politic, that such results will accrue from its passage into law within the next couple of days.
One of the things that the Premier commented on this afternoon in question period.... I don't know if I can quote his exact words, but I think these are very close to the words that he used: "The further east one goes, the greater the extent of development." There was a degree, I thought, of envy in his voice as he looked at what was happening on the other side of the Rockies. We have often heard comments in this House and elsewhere about what in fact does happen on this side of the Rockies. As a Maritimer by birth, it's something that I have had some time to contend with, as I think of the sea-to-sea nature of this country and some of the maverick manifestations that we develop in this wonderful province in which we all live.
Let's look at the body politic and some of the perceptions that have been nurtured in the minds of people as they have examined this bill. I want to note that those perceptions, as my colleague from North Island has noted in his comments today, are very often neither partisan nor political. They are practical perceptions. They are perceptions of what people anticipate will be the results of the implementation of this legislation. They are manifested, I think, in the first place by the demand for the bill itself. I understand that the Queen's Printer, and certainly each of us as MLAs, has never in recent years experienced an equivalent demand — people wanting to know what the bill says, what the amendments say.
When we take the various groups within our province and community who have become very interested in the substance of the bill, we find that without exception they are concerned about what will happen when it passes into law.
They have in fact given us, I think. some of the direction that is reflected in this amendment: that is, it would be well for the government to pause: it would be well for the government to relisten, if you like. to the arguments over a period of some — months.
The public perception by people who are not normally very much interested in the detail of a bill has been phenomenal. People have spoken to me and to others, and I'm sure to members on the other side of the House, about their concern about not only the details of the bill but the climate in which it is going forward. We have heard from labour, we have heard from management, we have heard from skilled legal advisers, mediators and arbitrators, and there has been a consistency in their response to the bill that again is unprecedented.
Those in the media who report on events here and who reflect on them in their editorials and columns have, of their own study and in reporting on the perspectives of the province, said over and over again that in this bill there are problems and difficulties. The language that has been used is in fact language that suggests the need for another look and for time: "fatally flawed." "palpably an error in judgment,"unfairness," not workable." The reputation of the bill means that it is not workable at this time.
As we're debating the final reading of the bill and the hoist motion, we're looking at a major labour dispute in another jurisdiction — a federal jurisdiction — which will not be covered by this bill directly. We're reminded again how complex labour relations are. We're aware of the role of the parties in seeking a resolution. We're aware of the responsibilities that each has taken unto itself. If you listen to the way the public is responding to this particular dispute in the Post Office, I think there is in the public's mind the knowledge that a satisfactory settlement of that dispute will come not from intervention but from the parties themselves, who know the issues and who, at the bargaining table and through whatever processes go with that dispute, will have to find a resolution. It's the parties who will seek the kind of help that they need for the resolution of that particular dispute. The imposition of some of the kinds of interventions described in the bill that we have been debating — section 62, disputes resolution — would, we believe, and we think the public believes, not be helpful in resolving the very difficult labour dispute that we're facing at this time.
The whole process by which this bill has evolved, developed and presented is also in question, and not just its substance: the role of government, the role of the Premier, the role of the minister and his officials, the roles of labour and management and others in the consultations that have occurred. It is clear that the public as well sees that that process has not been an auspicious one. It has led to further concern about the viability of the legislation. If we look at the people who will be parties to the enterprise, labour has made its position clear and has shown an openness to continue the dialogue. Management has been more discreet, but I don't think we have ever seen a bill in which the scales have been tilted in favour of that particular group and that group has also expressed very quietly — and, I imagine, sometimes in ways that we have not always been privy to — their concern about the action of the government in bringing forward this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I think this province wants to hold its head high in terms of how it manages its affairs. I don't think it wants to be known east of the Rockies as a maverick
[ Page 1928 ]
province that develops strange and unusual means of dealing with what is in fact the coin of the realm in every jurisdiction — some difficulties that may evolve from time to time with labour-management relations.
I think we want to get on with an agenda that we all agree is the important agenda in the province, an agenda that would not have 18 percent of the people in Prince George unemployed, which would not see people leaving this province because they don't think there's an opportunity, either as young people in their studies to find productive opportunity reflected in work or as skilled trades people, who are going to other climes because our investment and productivity have been so affected by a labour climate that is being held up as much, much more problematic than it actually is. We need to stop sending messages that we are not a good place to invest, and we need to stop working on legislation that will make us even more not a place where people can practically invest.
[5:15]
In the past the government has, by default, not acted on legislation that it has passed. We know that that happened in 1983, when the government introduced a whole package of bills, and a number of them didn't see any action. I suppose that has been suggested with this bill, that the government could delay its proclamation. But the intent of this particular motion is a more significant action than that. It says up front that we have canvassed this issue; that in this House and in the province we have had a fair and thorough discussion, as we have not had for some considerable number of years, on the issue of labour relations; that we understand that there are still concerns about this particular piece of legislation that mean it will not pass into law in a way that will have it work, as the government — I think in all sincerity — hoped that it might.
The credibility of the government is very much, I think, in two courses of action that it could take at this time. Join us in support of this motion, and then continue with a process which the minister, I think in all good faith, undertook in February in his consultations, and which it is clear the various parties — people in this House, labour, management, people who work in labour relations — would be prepared to work on; that is, developing a piece of legislation that, with significant amendment and change, could serve this province and its people better. Then we can return to the agenda that we can all support — an agenda for economic development, for improved investment and job opportunity, and for restoration and development of human services. As this side of the House has so often said, in those endeavours we are prepared to work with the government; and in this endeavour we encourage your reasoned, rational and considered response to what we consider to be an amendment that would serve the province well.
MR. CLARK: Madam Speaker, I rise, of course, to support the hoist motion.
Interjections.
MR. CLARK: I've surprised some members.
Bill 19 is so radical, so far-reaching and so complicated that a delay of six months really makes a lot of sense. The kind of tension that we've seen in this province in recent weeks is unprecedented. You can feel it in different labour negotiations going on around the province. Of course, the major impact will be felt clearly next spring, when all of the major contract negotiations come up. So a six-month delay for consultation, for discussion, and to cool off that kind of tension, makes a lot of sense. That's why we've introduced this motion today.
When the bill was introduced by the Labour minister, he stressed a couple of goals. One was that it would improve "long-term labour relations stability," and secondly, it would increase investor confidence. I agree with those goals, and I think most members do. The problem is that Bill 19 simply won't accomplish them. The most important reason is that consensus is lacking, and consensus is vital — indeed, it's essential — to harmonious labour relations. It simply requires that both parties have a degree of faith in the regulatory regime which governs labour relations before we can have any kind of reasonably peaceful labour relations.
Ninety-five percent of all collective agreements in British Columbia are resolved without work stoppages — a better record than Ontario and many other provinces. But in designing an enormous bureaucratic structure simply to deal with the 5 percent that fail, it's clear, from my reading of the bill and others', that the 95 percent that settle amicably now — or at least settle without work stoppages — will be really undermined in an attempt by the government to deal with the 5 percent that don't reach agreement.
There are three types of big changes introduced by Bill 19. All three of them concern me greatly and, I think, mean the bill won't work. The first is massive intervention in collective bargaining. This kind of intervention has never worked in British Columbia's history and has never worked in the western world. In Australia they tried it. They tried it in British Columbia in the late sixties. It has never worked. In this legislation we have a situation where intervention can be embarked upon by one person — Peck. In some cases, with these amendments, he'll have to phone the minister before he can do it.
I think it's important to realize that most of the techniques, such as mediation and others, have always been available to and used by the parties. But the difference is that one side, if not both sides, has asked for them. We now have a situation where one person can intervene unilaterally with a wide array of tools to try to impose a decision on the parties. That has never worked, as I said, and it simply won't work. It's quite clear from all the historical evidence, and it's clear from what's happening in British Columbia today, that it simply can't work.
The second kind of major change that this legislation brings about is the dramatic shift of the balance in favour of the employer. That's clear by every objective standard. Almost all of the changes made have shifted the balance and been in favour of the employer. The ten or so major decisions won by trade unions at the Labour Relations Board have been overturned by this legislation. In particular, double-breasting is clearly allowed, or at least made easier, by this legislation. Successorship rights are also clearly weakened by the legislation. Both of those have been argued by members of the government as clearly the intent of the legislation.
Almost all of the changes have been in the interest of the employer. It's my belief, and I think that of many on this side of the House, that the current Labour Code we're working under was already tilted in the employer's favour, particularly with the changes made in 1984. This legislation takes that one step further. I find those changes quite immoral. To allow a company to evade its obligations to its employees by legislation is immoral. It means that companies are now allowed to set up non-union subsidiaries in order to get around their
[ Page 1929 ]
obligations to their employees in their unionized company. It means that the rights of capital, in terms of disposition of property, take precedence over the rights of the workers who have worked for a company for many years. It's a major step backwards in labour relations in the province.
The third major kind of change that this legislation brings in — it's a bit like the second change — is that the bill intervenes in such a way as to retroactively strike out clauses in collective agreements that were freely negotiated between the parties, that were agreed to by employers. It eliminates them retroactively, and it strikes them out. Hot declarations are eliminated. Secondary boycotts are eliminated, All of those clauses that were agreed to by the employers in collective bargaining, historically, have been eliminated retroactively. It's elimination without compensation. It really strikes at the heart of collective bargaining. In order to get a clause which allows hot edicts to be in force, like many that are in force in British Columbia today, the union has had to give something up. Employers don't like those clauses, so the union has had to take a lower wage demand, or to give up some other aspect of their collective agreement. That's how labour relations works.
Interjection.
MR. CLARK: The member for Vancouver South is laughing, but that's how collective agreements work. In order to get a clause like the plumbers have, from 1927, which allows them only to install union-fabricated pipe.... The employer has consistently attempted to get that out of the collective agreement. Employers don't like it; it costs them a lot more money to install unionized pipe, so they've consistently tried to get it out of the collective agreement. Every time a collective agreement expires, the unions had to give something up on the bargaining table in order to retain that clause. This legislation retroactively eliminates a clause that was freely negotiated between the two parties.
I wonder if the government realizes really, in their free market zeal — the way they talk about the free market in fabrication of pipe, for example — how that will impact on the British Columbia economy. The last case that we had where this clause caused great controversy in British Columbia was the Skookumchuck pulp mill, where 70 percent of the contract was pipe. The major job in a pulp mill is pipe, in terms of the sub-trades involved. In the Skookumchuck pulp mill they wanted to bring in the pipe from, I think, Korea. The second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) will remember this, because he was working in the Premier's office at that time. It was a major cause of concern in British Columbia. But because of the 1927 clause in the collective agreement that said that the plumbers would only install pipe fabricated in unionized shops, the Skookumchuck pulp mill was required to purchase their pipe in British Columbia.
We now are on the verge of close to a billion dollars in pulp mill expansion in British Columbia — a dramatic increase in the capacity. Of that billion dollars, a great deal comes from pipe and the pipe-manufacturing sector.
MR. WILLIAMS: It could be at Ipsco.
MR. CLARK: It could be at Ipsco, for example. A great deal of the pipe comes from British Columbia. But if this bill passes, as appears to be likely in the next few days, then I suspect most of the pipe for that expansion will come from around the world — from Korea, Taiwan and other countries, but not from British Columbia.
The important thing here, however, is not that this or that specific clause is a problem, but that by the stroke of a pen the government has intervened in collective bargaining, in collective agreements that were freely negotiated between the parties, and eliminated them without any compensation to the union.
Those are the three major changes that we have seen: massive intervention, a tilting of the balance in favour of employers, and elimination of clauses in collective agreements without compensation. In my view, those are the three big changes that this legislation brings in. All three of them belie the tradition in British Columbia, and all three of them won't work.
With respect to the second goal that the minister stated, which was investor confidence, will investor confidence be higher now because of Bill 19? How do other countries view it? Well, I just had mailed to me an editorial from the Register-Guard of Eugene, Oregon. I will read it for the record, if I could. "Dark Ages for Labour in British Columbia" is the title.
"The recent Eugene teachers' strike has stirred debate here over whether the state's collective bargaining laws should be amended to remove teachers' right to strike. While we oppose such a change, there are legitimate arguments in its favour.
"Whichever side one takes in that dispute, though, anyone accustomed to collective bargaining American-style should be....amazed by this week's labour news from British Columbia.
"On Monday, an estimated 300,000 union members in all types of work there stayed off the job. They held a one-day general strike, a tactic fairly common in some countries but rare in North America.
"The amazing part, however, was not the occurrence of a general strike but the government proposal that inspired it. The Social Credit government that runs the province has introduced an 'industrial relations reform' bill that would give an appointed government commissioner the power to end strikes or lockouts that he deems contrary to the public interest.
[5:30]
"That kind of arbitrary power over the right to strike is unheard of in this country. If a similar move were ever proposed by an Oregon governor and pushed by a legislative majority, there probably would be general strikes here, too.
"Wire service reports said the government's response to the strike was to ask the provincial supreme court for an injunction to prevent further walkouts or other actions until the reform bill has passed. The request also sought to enjoin the British Columbia Federation of Labour from resisting legislative change or'pointing out errors in the government.'
"This begins to sound more like authoritarian Singapore or South Korea than our good, democratic neighbour to the north. The Vancouver Sun, which is editorially opposed to the labour 'reform' legislation, likened the government's court petition to a document one would expect from the government of General Jaruzelski in Poland.
"The court seems likely to reject the petition, but the B.C. parliament may well approve the legislation.
[ Page 1930 ]
In that event, peace will be a long time returning to the labour-management front there."
That's an editorial from Eugene, Oregon. That's the kind of editorial we're seeing all across North America. not just in British Columbia.
MR. R. FRASER: What's the name of the paper?
MR. CLARK: The name of the paper, for the first member for Vancouver South, is the Eugene Register-Guard, the main paper in Eugene, Oregon.
That's the kind of editorial comment we're seeing all across North America. Now how does that enhance our image in the world? How does that enhance our ability to attract investment in British Columbia? It clearly doesn't. It clearly sends a message — the wrong message — to the investment community around the world. This is simply bad legislation, when you look at it in terms of the three major thrusts of the legislation. Even when you look at it in terms of the government's own benchmark to promote foreign investment, it fails again.
As the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) says, there are two ways in which this bill can be dealt with now: the first is to support the hoist motion, which clearly won't happen in this Legislature; the other way is for the government not to proclaim it. Those are the only two avenues left for the government in terms of not proceeding with the legislation.
HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The third one is to finalize it.
MR. CLARK: The third one, the Minister of Municipal Affairs says, is to finalize it, and she's right. But if the members opposite want to consider any changes to the legislation, if they are swayed by any of the arguments around the world or by virtually all of the people involved in labour relations in British Columbia, they either have to not proclaim it for a while, let it cool down and look at changes, or they have to support the hoist motion. We on this side hope that the government considers and supports the hoist motion.
MRS. BOONE: I'm pleased to rise on our second hoist motion. When I thought of what I was going to say on my hoist, it got a little frustrating; we've said it all over and over, and we don't seem to get any response from members on the other side. It's very disheartening to put your best into something, to bring up arguments all the time and see the same blank looks on the other side, when you know that they're not paying any attention and they really don't care. However, one has to give this very last thing.
I want to read you some letters that I've received. These are not the types of letters that you expect me to read. They're not from people who walked out on June 1 or from people who are adamant union loyalists. These are from concerned people.
The first letter, from ten employees of Lakeland Mills, was sent to all and sundry, including the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Environment, myself, the managing director of Lakeland Mills, the president of the IWA, and Premier Vander Zalm. They say:
"The undersigned employees of Lakeland Mills Ltd. of Prince George, B.C., who are also members of IWA Local 1-424, did report to work on Monday, June 1, 1987, because we have a legal and binding contract with our employer.
"We do not agree with our union or the B.C. Federation of Labour on calling a general strike on June 1, 1987. In our opinion, there are better ways to convey our feelings to our provincial government than by a general strike.
"We disagree with the government policies regarding Bill 19 and Bill 20, and strongly urge you to withdraw Bill 19 and rescind Bill 20.
"In your election campaign, you promised that you would work with the people of this province to establish harmony in the workplace. However, in our opinion, Bills 19 and 20 will only deteriorate the relationship between employer and employee. Once again, we urge you to withdraw Bill 19 and rescind Bill 20."
This is from a group of people who are not radicals. You are always saying that the only people opposing this are radical unionists, the strong unionists. This is written by ten people who did not participate in the general strike, but who wanted you to know that there are others out there who did not go out on strike on June I but are still opposed to Bills 19 and 20. If you take into consideration the 300,000 who did walk out, plus the many who did go to work who were still opposed, then the 300,000 opposed to this bill will increase tremendously.
On the same day, I received a letter written to Mr. Vander Zalm from a teacher in Prince George. This is a teacher who I think was similar to many teachers who struggled with their conscience and had a real problem. She starts out her letter by saying:
"I am one of many teachers who will be reporting for work on June 1, but I do not want you to think for one moment that I support Bills 19 and 20.
"I have appreciated receiving information on Bill 20 from the government, and have done my best to stay abreast of the issues. However, from what I have read, I cannot support Bills 19 or 20, although there are some valid reforms included in them.
"What I and my colleagues object to so strongly is the manner in which these bills have been rushed through, as if the government had something to hide. If the legislation is based on good, solid precepts and is fair to all, then it will stand up to close scrutiny.
"Why could the government not have worked this bill out with the BCTF representatives and thrashed out all the thorny issues before presenting the bill to parliament ... "
She's talking about Bill 20 here.
"The number of amendments which you hastily made points out that you threw this bill together without thinking it through thoroughly.
"I agree that unions in the past have had too much power, but I would hate to see them broken, and the rights of the working man trampled, as they used to be in the pre-union era. A balance of power is best for all concerned.
"I made the very difficult decision to report for work on Monday after much soul-searching and discussion, and I based my decision on these points: (1) I'm a Christian and Romans, 13:1-7 instructs us to obey the law and governments; (2) teachers have already made a statement to show how we felt on
[ Page 1931 ]
April 28; (3) we care about the children we teach or we would not have gone into this profession; (4) we live in a democracy, and your government was duly elected.
"However, I do not have a short memory, and I remember the five-day school closure ordered by you, Mr. Vander Zalm, as Minister of Education, without regard for the needs of the children, in order to save money. When the next election rolls around, I will still remember your dictatorial method of imposing Bill 20 on us, without due consultation with our BCTF representatives. If we are truly professionals, as you claim we are, why not treat us as such, and say, 'Come, let us reason together, ' before throwing the bill at us?
"Please remember that for every letter you receive like mine, there are probably 20 to 30 others who feel as I do but do not think writing to you will make a difference."
I can understand her comment with regard to that, Madam Speaker.
"In closing, I would like to stress that none of the teachers with whom I have discussed this issue — 30 or more — approves of Bills 19 or 20, either in principle or the method by which they have been rammed through the parliamentary stages so rapidly. Yet most of them abhor staying away from the job. For most, the decision to teach or not has been a tough one to make, and in the end the decision has been left up to each person's conscience.
"We feel we work as a team in each school. and this issue could have caused bad feelings. Fortunately, we have been able to rise above the issue and remain unified in our condemnation of the government action, if not unified in our own decision to teach or not.
"Matthew 22:21 has been my final guide as to my decision. In Matthew, Jesus told the Pharisees to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. In my opinion, you and your cabinet are acting like Caesar, who was a despot and an oppressor of the Jews. But nevertheless you must receive your due, which is for me to fulfil my contract as the law requires.
"I do not hold any personal animosity toward you, as I realize that we all make mistakes, and your job must be one of the most difficult to do. I pray that you and your cabinet will listen to the cries of your people.... and rule with compassion and honesty. As one Christian to another, I urge you to listen to the voice of God more than to the words of men."
This, Madam Speaker, was written from the heart by a woman who suffered considerably, making a decision that she had to make in her own conscience. She, along with many others, suffered through the June 1 walkout. Many did walk out, and that hurt them; and many were on the job, and that also hurt them. But the problem that really arises here is that we see working people in our province divided. We see people torn apart as to what their decisions are going to be. Do they obey the law? Do they go with their conscience? What do they do? We are dividing this province between management and labour. We are dividing it at a time when we need to be working together to establish an economy that will set the province on its feet again. Instead, with Bills 19 and 20 we are creating the very opposite type of climate from that which we want to have.
Madam Speaker, I'm going to wind up my remarks on this because, as I said, I think I've said just about everything I can say on Bill 19.
Interjection.
MRS. BOONE: You aren't listening. I don't think you're listening to the letters from these people here, either. Perhaps you're listening, but you're not heeding. I'm asking you to please listen to the people of this province. Hoist this bill for six months. Put it on the shelf. Give us a chance to get ourselves back together again. so that we can work as a province to increase our economy. Make us strong. Don't tear us apart. I urge you to support this amendment.
MR. MILLER: Naturally I rise to support this hoist motion. I'm telling you that this is your last chance to act sensibly and listen to the people of this province.
Madam Speaker, after a steady diet of Bill 19 for the last month, I'm not feeling very good, and I don't think most people in this province are feeling very good. The clause-by-clause debate in this chamber has been a real eye-opener for those who participated in it. I must say that there weren't many members on the opposite side who did participate, or who even stayed around to listen. They might have learned something if they had.
[5:45]
It was clear, after reviewing this bill clause by clause, what the true intent of the bill was. It was revealed as a straight anti-union bill that will attempt to deunionize some sectors of the unionized workforce in this province. I suspect the government is hoping that we will see the consequence they want, which is the downward spiral. They don't like working people to be organized in unions. They don't like that kind of strength; they think high wages are bad for the economy. Unfortunately, I think they are wrong on every count.
We also discovered in the course of debating this bill that there were some definite weaknesses in terms of the government's ability to explain the purpose of some of the amendments and the purpose of the bill. We heard lots of chatter at the beginning of this debate about how we were going to bring democracy to the workplace. That was a big winner; it sounded like a good thing to say. It would probably rope a few people in who didn ' t really understand what the government was doing.
We heard lots of that kind of talk — the buzzwords and stuff that appeals to people — but when we actually got down to debating it, we debated a bill that clause by clause attempts to undermine the union movement. Obviously, it must be a matter of faith with this government that they think that is good. Given their penchant these days for studying the collected works of Margaret Thatcher, I guess that explains it.
There may be some flaws in that approach; I suspect there are. Despite our best efforts.... I understand there were some congratulations passed around in this chamber about the debate that was put forward on this side of the House about that bill — constructive debate, rational, logical, not up there in the stratosphere. There was the odd member, like the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) who didn't like it too much, but he wasn't here all that much anyway, so it really didn't bother me.
MR. WILLIAMS: He was in the stratosphere.
[ Page 1932 ]
MR. MILLER: He was in the stratosphere, somewhere out there. He will probably have a chance to take part in this debate. I am sure he will want to take his place later on.
I was a bit disappointed though, when that member accused me of being arrogant and elitist in what I had to say. I thought I was just an ordinary working guy who managed to make it down and become an MLA, but I didn't know until then that I had those characteristics.
Madam Speaker, despite our best efforts in terms of the quality of the debate, and a large body of opinion from so-called neutrals in our province — people like the person in the truck loggers quoted by the member for North Island and a number of people who have some knowledge about labour/management affairs and, I suspect, for the most part politically side with the government.... We had the courage to speak out and say that we think there are some fundamental flaws in the approach that the government is taking. Despite all of that — the opportunity that could have been used — the government decided to proceed on its own way. The opportunity that could have existed to bring about a more cooperative atmosphere in labour-management relations in this province has been tossed away. If anybody thinks that what we now are going to face in terms of the implementation of this bill and the possible boycotts that could take place, the chaos that that could bring — and I say could, because I don't want it to bring that.... If anybody is fooling themselves about that then they really are fooling themselves, because we've set ourselves up once again.
This morning coming down in a plane I was reading an interview with Galbraith, the economist, who has some passing knowledge of economic matters — a man of considerable stature. He talks about the value of the strength of unions, the value of that good wage to the economy, and decries the fact that the opportunities for bringing the union movement into the decision-making about economic matters has been passed over in favour of the kind of attitude that says: "They're the enemy; we'll put them in their place; we'll weaken them as much as we can and maybe bad times will do the rest." It's interesting to note that in the United States Senator Kennedy is sponsoring a bill to outlaw double-breasting. Contrast that with what this government is doing in Bill 19, which in fact okays double-breasting. They don't mind that there might be some demise in the capability of the construction industry in this province. They just see that the magic answer is to get rid of the unions and to lower wages, and everything is going to be okay.
It's unfortunate, because the mood I pick up in my constituency, which I'm sure exists in other parts of this province.... I'm sure that if some of the government backbenchers wanted to stand up and talk about the kind of opposition or the conversations they're getting in their constituencies, they would also admit that a lot of people in this province are extremely disappointed and feel quite worn out. Two days ago I spoke to a teacher in my constituency. The guy has been a teacher for 13 years. I've no reason to doubt his ability, his commitment to his profession. He says: "I'm getting out. At the end of this week, I'm out. I've had it." I know the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) put down that kind of response quite some time ago, before we actually came into session, in terms of somebody describing the attitude of the teachers. It's easy enough to put down: "Oh, yes. They just use that argument. They just want more money." But it's there. There's a genuine feeling of frustration, and there's a feeling that once again we're heading down that road.
B.C.'s place as a divided province is secure; the government has just made sure of that. It really is unfortunate, given the opportunity that existed, with a new government, with a new Premier, with a lot of new MLAs who before this session started publicly said: "We want to put that kind of divisiveness behind us. We don't want that rancour. We want to start working for everybody, to try to make this province work." It really is unfortunate that we're seeing that kind of attitude go down the drain.
We've got a government and a Premier who, in my opinion, disguised their true intentions in the last election. I'm telling you, when the former Premier resigned and the present one came along, there was a big exhalation right across this province: "We're finally through with this confrontational attitude and with fighting all the time; we can get on and start to build something." There was a genuine feeling of relief. Now that's gone, and people are sucking in again and saying: "God, we're heading down the same road."
We've got a Premier and a government who confuse stubbornness with strength and doggedness with determination. Unfortunately, the losers will be the people of this province. As I said, our reputation as a divided province is secure. If there's some credence to the fact that we have to straighten out this kind of attitude and this confrontation that exists in this province, in terms of trying to attract investment capital from other sources, then we're off to a pretty poor start.
It's almost embarrassing to me, as an MLA, to have that reputation continue. I don't think any of us want that for British Columbia; it doesn't do us any good. It's shocking, in my opinion, that in a province where we've got youth unemployment that is scandalously high, outrageously high, all we're dealing with is a bill to destroy unions, or to downgrade unions, to take away some of the things that they've negotiated over the years.
Where are we heading? We see in the Province this morning that tradesmen in British Columbia are heading back east. They're getting good offers and good wages: $25 and $28 an hour. They're going where the jobs are and where they've got a province that presumably doesn't feel that their legislative program should be predicated on an attack on working people. We still play this blind game of saying, "Oh, those easterners, somehow they're responsible for the position we're in," when really we're responsible, not the easterners. We're digging a hole even deeper and deeper. Maybe the Premier's got a big supply of those shovels that he talks about all the time that he wants to hand out to people and auction off and brag about and make himself look silly about; but I think we're just digging a deeper hole in this province.
Madam Speaker, I sincerely regret that that's the case, as I'm sure all members of this House would, if they freed themselves from their partisanship and spoke out in terms of the reaction to this bill they're getting in this province and, indeed, in terms of their own feelings on the bill.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Just before I conclude, I would like to recall a line that I learned in high school; my colleague from Nanaimo isn't here to correct me if I'm wrong. It's particularly apt, I think. It has to do with the tide in the affairs of men, and I won't go
[ Page 1933 ]
on, but I'll say that we've missed the tide and we've missed the boat. That really is unfortunate for the people of this province.
Mr. Speaker, I'll have more to say on this hoist motion. I think it's the last opportunity that this government will have to come to its senses. Did somebody else say that: "come to their senses"? Well, it's worth repeating.
Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, I would move adjournment of this debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.
Appendix
AMENDMENTS TO BILLS
22 The Hon. B. R. D. Smith to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 22) intituled Expropriation Act to amend as follows:
SECTION 5, in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting everything after "considers that" and substituting "an emergency exists or undue delay in the project would result."
SECTION 17, by deleting the proposed subsection (2) and substituting the following:
(2) Where
(a) an inquiry is not requested or has been denied, or
(b) an owner is not, under section 9 (1), entitled to request an inquiry, the approving authority shall
(c) approve the expropriation, and
(d) notify the expropriating authority and each owner of the approval in writing.
25 The Hon. B. R. D. Smith to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 25) intituled Legal Profession Act to amend as follows:
SECTION 78,
(a) in the proposed subsection (5) by deleting "matrimonial dispute or",
(b) by adding the following subsection:
(5. 1) A contingent fee agreement entered into by a member in respect of services that relate to a matrimonial dispute is void unless approved by a Judge of the Supreme Court.