[ Page 11509 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Notice of Termination Act (Bill M244). Ms. Edwards

Introduction and first reading –– 11509

Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act (Bill 79).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 11509

Mr. Clark

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Miller

Mr. G. Janssen

Members' Conflict of Interest Act (Bill 66). Hon. Mr. Dirks

Introduction and first reading –– 11517

Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act (Bill 79).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 11517

Mr. Miller

Mr. Clark

Ms. Edwards

Ms. Cull

Mr. G. Hanson

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Rose

Mr. Cashore

Tabling Documents –– 11535

The House met at 9:33 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

NOTICE OF TERMINATION ACT

Ms. Edwards presented a bill intituled Notice of Termination Act.

MS. EDWARDS: This bill applies to situations where an employer plans to lay off ten or more employees. When an employer is going to lay off ten or more employees in the period of four weeks or less, the bill requires that the employer give from ten to 18 weeks' notification of the termination of employment, depending on how many employees are being terminated. The employer must give the required notice of termination to the Minister of Labour. The employer must give the required notification to all unions certified to represent the employees. Where no trade union is certified to represent an employee, the employer shall post notification of the layoff at the worksite.

This bill allows the employer to terminate employment immediately if the employee is informed in writing of the layoff and paid wages in lieu of notice equal to the amount of wages normally paid during the layoff period.

The bill allows the minister to take actions to try to re-employ the laid-off employees, and requires the employer and trade union or unions involved to cooperate with the minister. These actions may include the formation of a committee to plan the re-employment of the laid-off workers.

Bill M244 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.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee on Bill 79, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SECTOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING DISCLOSURE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 79; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. CLARK: I wasn't able to be present for second reading of this ridiculous piece of legislation. I can't think of too many pieces of legislation that offend me more. It's appropriate, given the way we started this administration's term in office with Bill 19, that we would end the final day of this administration's term in office with this piece of legislation.

Could the minister explain to the House how many collective agreements are going to be covered by this legislation, given that the Interpretation Act defines public sector employer . . .? I would appreciate an understanding of the number of collective agreements that will be covered.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The hon. member, as he noted, wasn't here last evening. If he had been here, he would have been told by one of his colleagues that he estimated 400 to 500 contracts. The government hasn't done any calculation of how many might be affected, but I think that's largely irrelevant. I can tell the member that it would include municipalities, regional districts and improvement districts. It would include all Crown corporations, colleges, universities, schools — school boards would be influenced here— and community care facilities, as defined in the Community Care Facility Act. Basically the intention is to include in the parameters of the act any institution that receives funds from the public sector generally or from any public sector employer.

MR. CLARK: If we needed any proof that this sprung from the fertile but bizarre mind of the Premier in a flash, it's the minister's response to the question. I asked a simple question, and I cannot believe that your staff doesn't have an answer for it.

How many collective agreements will be registered before the registrar after this bill passes?

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to second this question. It's absolutely ridiculous to suppose that we're going to be talking about this kind of legislation — which obviously we're going to be. The government is going to pass it, and we're going to be talking about it. We don't have a clue what the government has in mind. The government doesn't even know how many people they are affecting, and then the minister doesn't even seem to be able to say how many types of institutions are going to be affected. Could the minister please give us some more reasonable answers so we know what we're talking about?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The last member who spoke seems not to have heard the comments I made last night during second reading. I would suggest she might choose to get a copy of Hansard and bring herself up to date.

MS. EDWARDS: I heard some of the minister's comments last night. They were as wacko as the bill is. They didn't give us any idea of what we are going to be dealing with.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The public has the right to know; you know the issue.

MS. EDWARDS: It seems that at this point the issue is that the minister doesn't know how many employees he is likely to affect by the legislation.

[ Page 11510 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, this government has squandered money, thrown money away — no balanced budget — and cooked the books, and now this minister of the Crown brings in a piece of legislation, and he has no idea how many contracts it will be covering. He calls it irrelevant. He hasn't done the homework. He doesn't know how much it's going to cost the taxpayers. I estimate this bill could cost millions to the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia all because of a cynical, political move. Could the minister try to get his staff to tell us, in their estimation, how many contracts are involved in this piece of legislation?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The members opposite have the audacity to describe this bill and this government as having squandered money. My goodness! I have sat in this House for the last number of months and listened to the members opposite and their electioneering posturing in which they have offered every possible hand-out conceivable in an attempt to manipulate voter intentions. We have attempted to put pencil to paper to add up the outrageous suggestions of the members opposite in terms of what they might do were the province unfortunate enough to have them assume office. To the best of our ability to calculate, we estimate that they would have intended to increase this budget by at least $3 billion, which is roughly a 20 percent increase.

Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you and the House and the people of British Columbia that this fragile economy, with its present state of uncertainty in terms of the future, could not possibly survive any suggestion that you would raise taxes to the tune of $3 billion.

Of course, if they chose not to raise taxes to cover this outrageous $3 billion expenditure suggestion, they would abandon the principle of a balanced budget. I get conflicting messages from the members opposite when I examine their public statements. On the one hand, different individuals have talked about continuing to balance the budget during good times, yet we are told by my critic....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I remind the minister, please, that we are dealing with section 1 of Bill 79.

MR. MILLER: We've heard the kind of bafflegab that this minister spews out on a regular basis. We thought he'd learned a few lessons over the years, but he obviously hasn't.

The question was pretty simple, pretty straightforward.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair takes exception to the words you use. "Spewing out bafflegab" seems somewhat less than parliamentary. I'd like you to withdraw that.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, if the words were offensive, I withdraw them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

MR. MILLER: As I said, the minister has a tendency to embellish everything he says with extraneous verbiage that all too often doesn't make any sense.

The question was very simple, very straightforward. This government has brought in a bill that runs contrary to a lot of things they've said in the past. It clearly runs contrary to all of the fine words that their Minister of Labour said when he brought in Bill 19. We are simply asking: how many employers and how many trade unions will be covered under this bill? What's the magnitude of the job that has to be done? If anybody had some idea of the numbers, it would be the Minister of Finance. If he doesn't know, that's a pretty telling comment on his ability as Minister of Finance.

[9:45]

MR. CLARK: They bring in a bill like this two days before the end of the session. They think they can play with people's lives — which it really does — for political purposes. This is such a loony bill, such a wacko bill. It's such a strange and bizarre piece of legislation. They bring it in and think they can use it to try to create an election issue— and maybe they can.

The problem I have with describing it as a wacko bill — which it is — and dismissing it as some kind of crazy idea out of the mind of the Premier, is that it affects people's lives. It means, in fact, the kinds of hoops that the minister and the government try to make the public sector unions go through— and public sector employers, I might add. It means that there's a real chance of defying this legislation. There are penalties in here of $50, 000, and the Supreme Court is referred to.

We're going back to the pre-1972 days of bringing the courts into labour legislation and labour problems in this province. It is not just a frivolous piece of legislation; it's a serious and weird piece of legislation which is going to cause disruption in the public sector. It does nothing to advance the cause of harmonious labour relations in British Columbia. It does everything to inflame the situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the second member for Langley standing on a point of order?

MR. PETERSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It my understanding we went through second reading of this bill last night. We're dealing with section 1. I don't see where the debate that's being carried on currently by members of the opposition is referring to section 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you hon. member, I don't think that's a point of order in this particular instance. We're dealing with section 1.

MR. MILLER: Could the minister advise which employer organizations he consulted prior to bringing this bill in?

[ Page 11511 ]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The issue was raised last night during second reading. I responded to the suggestion or criticism then that this government does not communicate with Its people. I developed the litany of communications and tours of the province by respective ministries sufficiently, I think, to absolutely clarify the issue and illustrate the truth of our claim that this government has communicated with the people of this province, the taxpayers, with people who have concerns and with lobby groups on a variety of issues, more than any other government in the history of this province. So for the members opposite to suggest that this government does not involve in those kinds of exercises is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth.

The members opposite, of course, are often strangers to the truth. I can appreciate that this is a difficult fact for them to accept, given their political ideology and bent towards centralist decision-making that doesn't involve community input. Nevertheless, this democratically elected government happens to believe that the people who are affected by decisions should be informed of the consequences of those decisions. More importantly, the opinions of the people should be heard on these public policy issues. We have embarked on and completed a wide-ranging period and sequence of consultations around the province on a whole host of issues.

The members opposite, of course, given their belief that they have this capacity to unilaterally sit in some ivory tower without communicating with people— we find that offensive on this side of the House. We have done more communication than any previous government. This bill is clearly in the public interest. This bill clearly speaks to the ability of the public to know the consequences of issues, which they're expected to pay for.

We think that it's a march into the future. We do not see it as an administrative burden. We do not see it as a heavy additional hoop to go through. We do not see it as unduly influencing negotiations. We do not see it as interfering with the established rules of the game. This does not interfere at all with the process of negotiation. It merely ensures that the public, who after all are going to have to pay the bills, have the ability to know not only the issues which are in dispute when the negotiations start, but maybe more importantly, the opportunity to capture the final positions of both sides in a dispute prior to the public being inconvenienced with a work stoppage.

For the members opposite to try to characterize this bill as against the public interest I find humorous in the extreme. I'm grateful for the kind of comments the members opposite have been making for the last few hours on this bill, because it will be useful for the public to appreciate the perception the members opposite have about what is in the public interest The members opposite seem to be trying to fabricate an argument that it is not somehow in the public interest for them to know the consequences of any work stoppage in the public sector. I find that absurd I know all of my colleagues on this side of the House are similarly pleased to have the opportunity to hear the views of the members opposite, who really are dancing like some marionettes on the strings that are controlled by union bosses. The posturing we saw last evening, when the only observers in the House, as I understand it, were those union bosses, sort of indicates what drives the special-interest, narrow focus of so many of the members of the socialist opposition.

If ever the people of this province wanted to see a graphic illustration of what drives this socialist opposition party, they really only have to read Hansard and the absurd remarks made by the members opposite over the last few hours. We can replay Hansard, and I look forward to the opportunity to do that during any ensuing electoral contest, because it will be very useful for us on this side of the House and, of course, most informative for the public who, after all, we're all supposed to be accountable to. I, like my colleagues, look forward to the opportunity to debate that on the hustings if, as and when the opportunity provides.

MR. MILLER: The minister betrays his true intent when he uses the kind of language he uses. This is not a sunshine bill as the minister says. It is a bill which the government hopes to be able to use in a crass, political manner to create a political situation that will somehow be in their favour.

They talk about union bosses. The problem with this government — and they have not realized it, and I don't think they ever will — is that they are constantly telling people what is good for them. This is a Big Brother government that tells people what's good for them. There is a very unfortunate history with this government, Mr. Chairman, of telling people: "We know what's good for you. Do what we say." That really will be their undoing.

The minister talks about the ability to know; the public should have the ability to know. I would think it would be a fundamental tenet in debating legislation that the minister would know how many employer groups and how many trade unions are affected by this bill. That would seem to me pretty simple and straightforward when we debate the clauses of this bill. A very simple question: how many employer groups and how many trade unions are affected? The minister doesn't have the answer. He talks about the ability to know when he doesn't even know himself the answer to one of the simplest questions concerning this bill. My question was, as I go back to my earlier comments— and the minister reinforced that too with his unfortunate desire to use extraneous verbiage when simple answers will do — how many employer groups were consulted prior to this bill being brought forward?

If I could just briefly expand on that, did you talk to the city of Vancouver? Over the years the city of Vancouver has developed a relationship with its employees. They bargain. They come to collective agreements. They generally do that without disruption. It is the responsibility of the city of Vancouver to do that. It's the responsibility of the city of

[ Page 11512 ]

Vancouver and its elected officials to deal with the electorate. They are responsible people. We assume they are. They conclude those negotiations, most of the time, in a timely fashion without disruption. And life goes on.

Did you consult with the city of Vancouver prior to bringing this legislation in? Did you ask them specifically if it was something they wanted? Did you ask them whether they thought this kind of legislation might disrupt that relationship that's been developed over the years?

I'll turn to my own community of Prince Rupert, where I used to be an alderman and participated in negotiations with the trade unions. We have a good relationship with the trade unions. We bargained collectively for many years. Mr. Chairman, 99 percent of the time we arrived at a collective agreement without a labour dispute. Occasionally there is one. That process of bargaining which takes place is done in an honest and open atmosphere, and It generally results in a collective agreement being signed.

Obviously the taxpayers of Prince Rupert have faith in their council to do that. It's never been questioned. Did the minister consult with the city of Prince Rupert? Did he consult with any municipality in this province prior to bringing this legislation forward? The question is very straightforward. We've gone through one question the minister can't answer Are we now on the second question the minister can't answer?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 1, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. MILLER: The minister didn't consult. The government didn't consult with anybody.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: Because the minister refused to get up....

HON. MR. COUVELIER: On a point of order, Mr Chairman, I have responded to this question twice. I responded to it last evening. The question is repetitive, and it has been answered. I do believe there is a requirement to recognize the fact there is no useful purpose served by repeating the answer ad nauseam.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister does make a point. We can't allow ourselves to get back into second reading in this bill. I'll just bring that to your attention.

MR. BLENCOE: The biggest organization that represents local government in the British Columbia is UBCM. It has a lot of credibility. This government prides itself on consulting constantly and consistently. What consultation was held with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, which represents all the towns, villages and regional districts? There are probably 300 to 400 contracts right there alone — maybe more.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member continues.

MR. BLENCOE: Will the Finance minister — supposedly the architect of this bill, In consultation with the Premier, I presume — answer a very important question? The UBCM represents all local governments in British Columbia. They are to be dramatically affected by this legislation. It will destabilize their workforce, their working situation and their communities. This minister, who was chairman, president of UBCM....

MR. CLARK: He's not going to answer anything.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm going to ask him more questions about that in a minute.

What consultation, what discussions, what information did you share with UBCM on this destabilizing piece of legislation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 1, the second member for Victoria continues.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, this legislation has such dramatic impact on the communities of this province at the grass roots, and this minister of the Crown who has brought this bill in here cannot answer the question: did he consult with UBCM, the biggest organization representing communities in British Columbia? Was there consultation? Did you discuss this with the president of the UBCM? Did you discuss it with the executive of UBCM? Did you discuss it with the key mayors in this province or with regional districts or chairmen?

[10:00]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I've dealt repeatedly and at length with this question of consultation. The members opposite would like to run through a litany of everybody who might be affected by the bill to determine whether we consulted with that group. It's clearly impossible when contemplating legislation to discuss and dialogue with every single member of the affected community.

The members opposite are attempting to trap me and my responses so that they can identify whom we didn't discuss things with, for the purpose of maximizing their point that no discussion took place. Mr. Chairman, this government has consistently followed a policy of travelling this province far and wide. We will continue that policy of having discussions with taxpayers and affected groups. You can't possibly, hon. member, try to fabricate the argument that this government has not listened to the concerns of the people. You cannot possibly prove any inadequacy on our side of the House in terms of willingness to learn the attitudes of the people we're attempting to serve. You cannot possibly characterize this bill as being against the public interest. It is clearly in the public interest for them to know the circumstances around which a labour dispute may unfold in the public sector. After all, they are paying the bill.

[ Page 11513 ]

These members opposite who are attempting to respond to that narrow pressure group that makes such great contributions to their campaign funds are trying to show some lip-service interest to the whole issue of public sector bargaining. When you look at the facts and the history, public sector bargaining has been running at least three points ahead of private sector bargaining. The members opposite seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that the public does have a limited ability to pay and that while the public sector negotiating process must be free and unencumbered and without the heavy hand of government involved, nevertheless the public at least has a right to know the issues in dispute and the cost of the respective positions. That's all the bill does.

It doesn't interfere in the bargaining process. It in no way imposes a heavy hand on either the union or the management side; it merely gives the public the right to know the reason the dispute takes place and the issues around which they are not able to agree. Clearly that's in the public interest. If anyone really cares about democracy and the cost of government and the relevancy of public service, they have to support the ethic of this bill, which is public communication and right to know.

MR. BLENCOE: This minister talks about consultation in a broad sense for this government. He talks about it being in the interest of the taxpayers and the citizens of British Columbia. The UBCM, through its mayors, its aldermen and its affiliates, represents every citizen in British Columbia. It represents every stabilizing factor in a community. It's quite clear that this minister and this government have not consulted with that organization or with those communities on such an important piece of legislation that has the potential to, and will, destabilize local government and create chaos at the local level unless there's some consultation.

The last time I remember this kind of process was when the Premier addressed the UBCM a few years ago and unleashed his "United States of British Columbia" on British Columbia. The president of the UBCM that day said: "I've never heard of this before." We know what happened for two or three years after that — and the millions of dollars that were spent. Then that program disappeared, because it was chaos, it was crazy, it was wacko — just like this legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is second reading debate, hon. member. Section 1.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, we think this is so important. We believe in proper collective bargaining, we believe in consultation, we believe in stabilizing legislation, and we believe that the biggest organization, the UBCM, which represents all the citizens of British Columbia — the mayors and the aldermen — should have been consulted.

The last time this happened we had chaos. We had a whole new bureaucracy, and we had $20 million to 30 million of taxpayers' money spent on an experiment that came right out of the ex-Poole room over here. Then that was abandoned, and we had spent all that money.

This minister has the audacity to tell us that our questions on detail in this bill are irrelevant, that it's irrelevant that we want to know how many contracts are covered. I can assure you, the UBCM will want to know how many contracts will be covered.

Can the minister tell us how much money the taxpayers are going to have to pay for this new procedure? I think we're entitled to some answers. The fact that this former president of the UBCM hasn't had the decency, in such a critical area as labour management in British Columbia, to consult with UBCM I just find totally irresponsible. Quite clearly it's because they have a political, cynical agenda to try and create more confrontation in British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister stands on a point of order.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I take offence at the characterization of the motive of government to be a cynical exercise, and I ask the hon. member to consider his comments and withdraw them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. member withdraw?

MR. BLENCOE: No, Mr. Chairman, because....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're dealing in committee stage with this bill. Can we stick to sections 1 and so on through the bill? We've been having second reading debate from both sides of the House.

MR. MILLER: The whole issue of labour negotiations and labour relations is a very complex one. We have a body of labour law, actually a body of expertise, that's been developed around that whole area. This bill flies in the face of all of that, and I think the questions are very relevant and very In order in terms of the people named in the interpretation as to their involvement in the construction of this bill.

That's critical. We're talking about a very, very delicate balance when it comes to these negotiations. It's not something that one trifles with; it's not something that one plays politics with. You should be absolutely serious and certain about what you're doing.

I would note that the Minister of Labour, who has the broad mandate to deal with these issues, has been silent and has not been present during any of this. I don't know whether it's because he's embarrassed about this kind of legislation. Perhaps he wasn't consulted either, because it clearly is regrettable that the very straightforward question that I put to the minister.... I drew my question from the schedule to the bill, where a number of employers and organizations are named. They are in the bill, and I asked a

[ Page 11514 ]

very straightforward question in terms of consultation.

Did the minister consult with the city of Vancouver? Did the minister consult with the city of Prince Rupert? The answer to that was no. Did he consult with any of these organizations so listed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Advanced Education on a point of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member by his own admission and argument admits that he's not debating section 1. Perhaps we could get to section 1 and discuss the schedule when it's time to discuss the schedule, which comes at the end of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 1, please.

MR. MILLER: A public sector employer is defined in the bill under interpretation. Section 1 is what I was referring to; I think that's completely in order. The minister could save himself a great deal of trouble if he would answer the question, because it has not been answered. If the question becomes tedious, it's because the minister refuses to answer. The only conclusion we can draw, given that the minister refuses to answer, is that none of the organizations listed in this bill were even consulted. There was no discussion whatsoever. There was no discussion with these organizations on the impact this may have on their relations with their employees.

The minister seems to take great delight in bashing the employee organizations, so I'm asking him about the employer organizations, and he doesn't want to talk about that either. It really reinforces the notion that if the minister is unprepared to answer a simple question regarding these organizations, it is clear that he did not consult and it is clear that this bill has some other odious political intent.

It's also quite a shameful day when the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Jacobsen), who has the responsibility to deal with these issues, is not in this House. Clearly he was not consulted in terms of this bill. He has nothing to say about this bill. If I were the Minister of Labour, I would hang my head in shame and not be here as well.

I'd like the minister to answer the question; it's pretty straightforward.

MS. EDWARDS: Well, I have done what the minister suggested, and I thought I might have missed something last night. The minister still refers back to second reading debate for facts. The minister has given us no facts, Mr. Chairman. There are no facts at all as to how many people will be involved; that was the first question and the question on which the minister referred us back to his statements last night, in which he said nothing about it. He hasn't even said what it will refer to. When he defines "public sector employer" and "public sector employee" here, he hasn't got any numbers. We don't know what he's talking about; when you define them by word definition, that's just fine, but as far as numbers are concerned, and in practical terms, the minister doesn't know what he's defining.

When we talk about consultation, he talks about the UBCM. He didn't consult them. Did he consult the B.C. School Trustees' Association or the B.C. Hospitals Association — just to talk of the employers? He does define "employees" here. Did he consult the B.C. Federation of Labour? This is the minister that declares that we represent a special-interest group, but he doesn't consult anybody. He doesn't consult everybody involved, and doesn't even think it would be really there. The unions who will be affected In their actual bargaining here: he doesn't know; he didn't consult. Who is it? Is this a case of spontaneous generation, Mr. Chairman? Maybe the minister doesn't understand the facts of life.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we continue, I would like to point out to members that the questions with respect to section 1 have been asked. I've heard the questions asked numerous times now. I would remind those questioners that just because a question is posed, there's no requirement under standing orders that it be responded to.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to go back to when the minister was the mayor of Saanich and dealing with....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's out of order.

MR. BLENCOE: No, it's not. Public sector employers is under this section. It talks about public sector employers. The current Minister of Finance was a mayor of a very big municipality and, as I did and all of us did who were involved at the local level, on many occasions had to deal with employees during difficult collective-bargaining processes. I can recall quite vividly, on many occasions, the media asking the mayor of Saanich how negotiations were going. What were the issues? What were the details on the table? That mayor, now the Minister of Finance, said: "Oh no, we can't discuss those. That's for the collective-bargaining process. That's the way we do it. That's private discussion. When we have concluded our democratic bargaining process, the information will be shared."

What has changed? Is it because of your association with the Premier, that he wants this wacko piece of legislation? I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the former mayor of Saanich, whom we are now going to have to deal with in this legislation, in terms of the information that is going to be forthcoming, supposedly, would consistently say, "No, that's part of the collective-bargaining process; we don't discuss those matters, " and tell the media basically that the process would continue. I ask the Minister of Finance: what has changed? Why? This flies in the face of what you did for many years at the local level.

[10:15]

AN HON. MEMBER: Sunshine.

[ Page 11515 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Sunshine!

Can the minister answer that question?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I'm a little bit troubled by the suggestion that we haven't answered it. I believe we have answered it.

MR. CLARK: Name one group you've consulted with.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I am not going to go through a litany of who we have and who we have not discussed it with. To do so would merely provide a further opportunity for the members opposite to try to make their fallacious point.

The fact of the matter is: is this bill in the public interest or is it not? Yes or no. You're saying it's not. As I understand you, you are trying to make the argument it's not in the public interest. I can understand, given the way this party is financed and the kind of support group you try to represent, that you would at least give lip-service in opposition. But to repeat ad nauseam a request for information which I am telling you I am not going to provide is just wasteful of everybody's time.

MR. G. JANSSEN: It's obvious that the minister doesn't have any answers, and he doesn't have any trust in the people of British Columbia; otherwise he would have consulted with them. A minister who calls public employees "bean-counters" and having their "snout in the public trough" can hardly have....

HON. MR. COUVELIER: On a point of order, I never called public employees, as a group, "bean counters." Obviously not all of them are in the accounting profession.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The minister seems to get upset when we refer to how he feels about the people of British Columbia who happen to be employed by the public.

Who has he consulted with? The Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) is in the House. Perhaps he can tell us if he has consulted with him about this bill. The Minister of Finance doesn't want to get up and answer any questions, because he obviously doesn't have any answers. Perhaps the Minister of Health can tell us if this bill was discussed with him. I know it wasn't discussed with the nurses or with other health unions.

Very simply, section 1(1)(a) says: "...who employs one or more public sector employees...." The question to the minister is very simple. If this bill becomes an act — and we all remember the David Poole affair; he was a public employee and was paid out of the public purse — will that automatically become public? Will you release the information on people who received massive pensions because they were bought off? Will that then become public in the public's interest?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Had the hon. member tried to read this bill, he would know it deals with collective bargaining issues purely and simply. It does not intrude in the process. It merely requires both sides to file their respective positions with an impartial registrar. That's all — pure and simple.

As to the suggestion about stipends paid to other employees, that's all a matter of Public Accounts. The members opposite and the public have that information; it's available to them. It hardly needs inclusion in this debate. We're dealing with section 1, and I hope we could get on with it.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Again the question is very simple. Before we pay off people like Mr. Poole, will the government put forth its position on how much they are offering? Will the public employees such as Mr. Poole put forth their position on how much they are asking? Will the public be able to look at that question? Will we then be able to put forward to the registrar . . .?

It says: "...one or more employees." He was one employee. Will we then have a public meeting that we can all come to and where the public can go to and say: "We think it's fair. We think it's unfair"? Will that then be possible under this bill if it becomes an act?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 1 pass?

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister should answer that question. It's a very good question, because we've had some very questionable decisions, particularly the Poole one. Is that kind of public expense, the details, the reasons and the rationale going to be made public to the people of the province of British Columbia? Are you going to do it to the public servants in this manner with no consultation? Are we going to see those kinds of deals concocted over here in the west annex? Are we going to see those kinds of deals disclosed to the public of the province of British Columbia?

So the minister doesn't have to get up each time, will the minister confirm that the Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) refused to introduce this piece of legislation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 1 pass?

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, the only major set of collective bargaining in the public sector between now and the next election that I can determine is with teachers. There are 75 teacher districts in the province. The health care workers are settled — almost. The BCGEU is settled. The major employers are settled, so it's teachers.

Everybody in British Columbia knows the contempt with which this government holds the teaching profession in British Columbia. Every member of the public knows the way they have treated and used teachers as an election issue in British Columbia.

[ Page 11516 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order. It's not relevant to section 1, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're dealing with section 1 and relevancy is required. Will the member please proceed.

MR. CLARK: The teachers are the only ones who will have to face this legislation if it passes, because after the next election this will be repealed and the government will be a different government.... They may be the only ones to deal with it because it's such a stupid and ridiculous piece of legislation that if it does serve their purpose, it will be repealed in any event. I'm convinced of that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, last night I believe you were in the chair when you clearly ruled that the word "stupid" and other words were unparliamentary and had no place in this debate.

I submit that the members opposite are exercised over this piece of legislation because it clearly goes against everything they stand for. Secondly, I believe that besides the word "stupid" which should be withdrawn, they have strayed far away from relevancy as it pertains to section 1.

MR. ROSE: I was the one who raised the matter of stupidity last night, but it was directed at individuals. This was directed at the legislation, so I don't think there is anything personal there, and I see no reason for him to withdraw. I think all of us would agree, except perhaps the minister, that this indeed is stupid legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank both hon. members for the advice they have given the Chair. I would ask the second member for Vancouver East to continue, but stick to section 1, please.

MR. CLARK: I keep getting interrupted, Mr. Chairman, before I make the point. The point I'm making is that because the teacher and B.C. School Trustees' Association bargaining is the major set of negotiations which are coming up shortly and will be affected by the legislation, I want to ask the minister specifically if he consulted with the B.C. Teachers' Federation, the B.C. School Trustees' Association or any school board in British Columbia before bringing down this legislation.

I just want, for the record, to show that the minister, incompetent as he may be, clearly doesn't have any clue about this legislation. He can't even answer very simple questions with respect to its interpretation. He goes into auto-rant with respect to the political line he's been asked to peddle. He probably knows, because he's not — well, I won't say that. I've just been told not to say that. He probably knows as well that this legislation is stupid, and that's why he can't defend it.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I didn't get any answers on whether we were going to specifically deal with individuals in this legislation, although it definitely makes reference to individuals, one at a time. Obviously we're not going to get any information on when matters such as the David Poole question come up. Perhaps the minister can inform us if this legislation simply deals with those in the lower echelon, so to speak, of the union bargaining process. Or are we , also going to deal with individuals the government hires on a contract basis to do specific work? Deputy ministers? The Deputy Minister of Health was just let go. Are we going to have that in the public purview for the public to be involved in the negotiations as to how much they will be paid? Will there be public meetings called to deal with whether or not the offer made by the government or the amount requested by the deputy minister or the contract person...? Will we get into that sort of argument with this bill?

[10:30]

HON. MR. COUVELIER:- I answered that question ten minutes ago. The member is obviously confused. He hasn't recognized the title of the bill, nor has he looked at the definitions that are contained in section 1. If he had just done that, he wouldn't have had to ask the question in the first place.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 39

NAYS - 20

On section 2.

MR. CLARK: It always strikes me as odd when you see these right-wing governments suggest that another layer of government is going to solve our problems, and here we have it again. We're establishing another layer of government in this clause to be the depository of collective agreements.

[ Page 11517 ]

This is really an important section. This is an important part of the bill. We're going to have hundreds of collective agreements and we're going to set up this new organization under this bill to try and deal with it. It's sort of like the Canadian Senate, another anomaly where right-wingers always want this effective and new Senate, as if another layer of government is going to solve our problems in Canada. Here we have it in the labour relations field — another bureaucracy to deal with the public sector.

Of course, speaking of Senate, I wouldn't be surprised to see Darwin Benson appointed registrar. He's got nothing to do in the mediation branch. You'd almost think the bill was set up to give him something to do— file all these collective agreements.

Section 2(1) says: "Where a collective agreement between a public sector employer and a trade union is in effect at the time this act comes into force, the public sector employer shall file a copy of it with the registrar within 30 days after this act comes into force." What happens if they don't file it?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The remedies are contained later on in the bill. I believe section 6 refers to that issue.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. CLARK: Section 6 deals with sections 4 and sections 5 of this act, and it doesn't make any reference to section 2 of the act.

MR. SERWA: Oh yes, it does — 6(3), (1) and (2).

MR. CLARK: No, it refers to 6(l) and (2). What is the remedy if a public sector employer refuses to comply with section 2(1) of the act?

MR. MILLER I presume the government, if they get this bill passed, has every intention of proclaiming it. Is there any latitude in terms of this filing requirement, given that...? Presumably given! I can't anticipate what the government might do; it's pretty difficult to figure them out at the best of times. But presumably given that they want to pass the bill and put it into effect, is 30 days an absolute requirement of the government, or is there latitude in that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I rise as House Leader to advise the House that we're going to have about a one-minute interruption for another piece of business, a piece of legislation, to be introduced so the members can have as early as possible a look at it. So with that said, I will move that the committee on Bill 79 rise and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

Introduction of Bills

MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

Hon. Mr. Dirks presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Members' Conflict of Interest Act.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House provides a comprehensive framework for financial disclosure and for handling conflict of interest on, the part of members of this House. The people of British Columbia have the right to be assured that decisions of elected officials are being made in an atmosphere free of conflict of interest. They have a right to know that members of this House will not use information obtained in the execution of their duties or use their office to influence a decision which furthers the members' private interests. We are all aware in public office that the perception of a conflict of interest can be as harmful to the process of government as an actual conflict of interest.

This bill provides for the appointment of an officer of the House who will oversee this process. The commissioner will receive all financial disclosure information from members and will be empowered to recommend to members how best to handle their affairs so that a conflict of interest cannot arise. In addition, the commissioner will, at the request of any member of the House, provide an opinion if in any given situation a member is in a conflict-of-interest position. The bill provides for penalty from suspension to removal from office for the contravention of the act.

We're not breaking new ground here. Several other jurisdictions in Canada have conflict-of-interest legislation. The experience of other jurisdictions has been taken into consideration in defining the framework set out in this bill. The result is a process that strikes a proper balance between a member's privacy and the public’s right to be assured that decisions made by members of this House are free from conflict of interest.

Bill 66 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for consideration later in the day.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 79.

PUBLIC SECTOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING DISCLOSURE ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 79; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

On section 2.

MR. MILLER: Does the minister recall my question, Mr. Chairman, or do you want me to rephrase it?

[ Page 11518 ]

Look, this bill is coming in on what appears to be the last day of the sitting of this Legislature — that's not entirely guaranteed, by any means — and it proposes a massive intrusion and imposes requirements on the parties named in the bill. I did suggest that the minister may want to advise what the government's intentions are with respect to the bill. But clearly there's an extensive reporting requirement under section 2. My question was: is the 30 days' notice an absolute requirement or, given the confusion and the last-minute aspects of this bill, is there latitude in that?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I believe the member from Prince Rupert was following up on a question put from the second member from Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) basically. Do I understand this properly? Your long preamble.... I dozed off, so I didn't quite catch the thrust of what it is you wanted to know. I know what you think, but I still don't know what you want to know. Could you rephrase the question?

MR. WILLIAMS: If you snooze, you lose.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Finance would have done everybody a favour if he had slept instead of coming up with this goofy bill.

MR. BLENCOE: It's a bad dream.

MS. CULL: It's a nightmare.

MR. MILLER: It's a bad dream. This isn't real; it's not really happening.

MR. BLENCOE: It's Socred reality.

MR. MILLER: Look, you're bringing in this requirement, and you say it's 30 days. As far as I know, you don't have a register in place, and you can't until the bill passes. So in terms of this time sequence and the reporting requirements, just how firm is the 30 days? That's pretty straightforward.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's firm.

MR. MILLER: Will official notification be sent to the employer organizations listed under section 2 prior to the 30 days kicking in? What time-frame are you looking at there?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's the public sector employer who is expected to file. I'm at a loss to understand why they would refuse. As I understand it, the collective agreements are already required to be filed with the IRC under the Industrial Relations Act, so I don’t quite understand what the members are focused on here.

MR. CLARK: The minister says the collective agreements are already required to be filed at the IRC, so why would you set up another bureaucracy to file another set of collective agreements? Just have your bureaucrat go down and take a look at the other aspect of this huge bureaucracy that you've set up. Can you tell me why you want parallel legislation to do exactly the same thing that you've already requested in other legislation?

HON. MR. COUVELIER. The answer should be obvious. To use the words of one hon. member last night, what is needed Is a repository — spelled with an "r" — where all this information is available: that is to say, the contracts that are in place, the opening bargaining positions of respective members in the public sector and the final position prior to a work stoppage — all reposited in one place convenient for the public to access.

[10:45]

MR. MILLER: Is that going to be in Vancouver?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I suppose it's a possibility. We certainly haven't any designs yet on where this small office of three or four people might be located. In a similar sense, we have no preconceptions about who the registrar might turn out to be. That may well dictate the location of the office. But we're getting ahead of ourselves here. This bill is brought forward now so that it can be enacted and acted upon in the near future.

MR. MILLER: You talk about it being available to the public. If it's in Vancouver, I guess it's available to people in Vancouver; I don't know how accessible it is to people outside Vancouver. It seems that the point my colleague made earlier hasn't really been resolved. This information is already — at least in terms of the contract — on file and available in Vancouver. Why the need to have a duplicate set? You're supposed to be conscious of the environment, aren't you? Do we have to produce some more paper unnecessarily? This is rather bureaucratic, don't you think?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Second member for Vancouver East.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister has had a chance now with his staff to determine what the penalty is if a public sector employer refuses to comply with this section of the bill.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's not considered necessary to have a penalty, Mr. Chairman. As we said, insofar as the information is already filed with the IRC and that's being complied with, there's no need for a penalty to be imposed here.

MR. CLARK: Can any member of the public go to this new register and look at any collective agreement signed by any set of public sector negotiations?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CLARK: Will there be a fee for that?

[ Page 11519 ]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: There's no fee intended at the moment.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 39

NAYS - 20

On section 3.

MR. CLARK: This is arguably the worst section of the bill in many respects, because this will have the effect of stifling the collective bargaining process. This bill — in total, but particularly this section — demonstrates the kind of deliberate ignorance we've seen on the government benches with respect to labour negotiations. Of course, it's interesting that the Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) didn't bring in this bill, but rather the largest public sector employer brought in the bill.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Point of order. Previous Chairmen have ruled that kind of reference to members, specifically, as being unparliamentary. The member's last statement specifically said that he was referring, with his unparliamentary remarks, to the members' opposite. I would ask that he withdraw in a similar sense that we've been asked to withdraw any other suggestion that members, personally, might feel abused by the use of such language.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure exactly what the member said. However, if the member who just finished speaking said anything unparliamentary toward any members, I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. CLARK: No, I didn't. Mr. Chairman.

This section demonstrates a particular ignorance that is really striking to anybody who has conducted or been involved in labour negotiations.

I would like to ask some questions to further demonstrate that point. Can the minister inform the House how each party can prepare a summary of matters that will be in dispute two days after bargaining started, when very often — in most cases, as a matter of fact — the matters that are in dispute aren't determined until some weeks into bargaining? Very often it takes days and days to determine precisely what is meant by each other's bargaining.

This bill gets both parties to prejudge the other side, guess which matters will be in dispute, prepare a summary and put it forward. Once the summary is in place, once both parties have put a summary of their suggestions in place and their response to each other's suggestions, and it's in black and white for the public to see, it's going to be very hard for either party to compromise and reach the kind of negotiations which we would all want to see in terms of coming to a satisfactory resolution.

How can parties be expected to crystal-ball-gaze and prepare a summary of matters that they consider will be in dispute sometime in the future only two days after bargaining has begun?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We view it as a necessary first step that after the first meeting both sides should be able to define in general terms the areas under which they anticipate they will be requesting changes of the collective agreement. It doesn't seem to me that that's an unreasonable request to make. It seems to me that the requirement that it be filed reasonably quickly after the first meeting is in the public interest and certainly not unreasonable.

MS. EDWARDS: It seems to me, Mr. Minister, that there are several options for either an employer or the employees, and that is to over-file — in other words, to do a whole hurricane of paper and put down everything, which of course, would lead to this situation where it would be practically impossible for the registrar to deal with it; or you would file enough that it would say nothing, which of course two days after you begin negotiations is about what you know; or you might not file at all. I don't think we got any answers to what happens to you if you don't file.

[11:00]

I'd like the minister to discuss the level of detail he expects to be filed. Does he expect to know anything when people file something after two days into the session of bargaining? Does he seriously suggest that documents that support positions are going to be filed? These documents are always kept quite quiet; they're not documents that are going to be made public; they're certainly not documents that the public institution ever makes open to the public now; presumably they are the ones that are the basis for the position. What degree of confidentiality does he expect to leave to the two sides in this bargaining practice?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I continue to be amazed at the comments and the time-consuming exercise the members go though. The bill is very plain. Section

[ Page 11520 ]

3(e) says: "Any documents that each of them has submitted or will be submitting to the other in support of their respective positions." The member's question is answered.

MS. EDWARDS: We have to again stress this whole situation with the minister. "Will be submitting" at what point? 'Will be submitting" if what? If we bargain for another day? If we bargain for another two months? If we bargain? What is it that the minister expects? What kind of ability to see into the future does he expect of the government? Because the government will be involved in this. What kind of response does he expect to this? It's absolutely foolish to suppose that everything that they might use is going to be put in. Or is the minister saying that if you do not file your papers at this point, you then can't use them in bargaining? I really think we deserve an answer to this. If the documents are not filed with this registrar, does the minister assume that they will not be used in the bargaining? Is that what he believes?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The bill quite clearly says that the documents that they share with each other can become public documents, and they must be shared with the registrar. The bill quite clearly says that failure to do so results in a penalty — and that's contained in subsequent sections, hon. member. You only have to read the entire bill, and your question need not have been asked in the first place.

When are you people going to start doing your homework? When are you people going to understand that we're here at public expense to do their business? When are you people going to get on with the job? When are you people going to stop posturing? When are you people going to stop dangling on the end of the strings of the puppeteer who's manipulating you on this bill? When are you people going to understand that this bill is in the public interest? This bill deals with the public's right to know; this bill deals with the public's money. Are you trying to suggest or fabricate an argument that it's against the public interest to let them know how their money is being spent or is being proposed to be spent?

My goodness, I continue to be astounded at how you people are so successfully wasting time. These comments that you're trying to make from a philosophical position, that you're trying to state during committee stage, you made last night in second reading. We can go through the whole thing again. I'm quite prepared to do so. We can spend a week, two weeks, three weeks on this bill, because it's right. I know that every one of my colleagues will love to take this bill out to the hustings, because it's a good bill.

If you want to read the entire bill in the privacy.... Maybe you should hive off somewhere so you get some privacy and concentrate your attention. The questions you've asked are contained in the sections of the bill itself. There is hardly any need to ask obvious questions that are in the bill itself.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I am amazed at this minister. I shouldn't be amazed anymore. Here he is, with his high-handed, arrogant attitude, suggesting that a bill that was brought in yesterday and that we're supposed to debate today.... He accuses us of not doing our homework. He doesn't know how many employees it's going to affect; he doesn't know who agrees with it; he doesn't know who it's going to affect as far as employers are concerned — and he has never asked. But he tells us that we haven't done our homework. He stands there and says very clearly that we shouldn't be asking him questions. Maybe he thinks we shouldn't be asking him questions because he doesn't have the answers, Mr. Chairman.

Does the minister mean that if documents are not filed two days after the beginning of negotiations, they will not be able to be included in the negotiations?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The bill says that if the documents are not filed within two days of that first meeting, there's a penalty imposed.

MS. CULL: Mr. Minister, sometimes in the course of bargaining documents are created. You don't know that they're going to be created until you get into the bargaining process. They're typed out at midnight, 1 a.m., 2 a.m. What happens to those documents? You don't know in advance, two days after your first bargaining session, that you're even going to need such documents. Do they have to be filed with the registrar? I don't see where it talks about documents that you don't know about two days after the first session. What is the status of those documents? Where do they come in?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Good question, Mr. Chairman. The fact Is that documents that are developed during the course of the give and take of bargaining need not be disclosed. All we're saying is that the public should have the right to know the opening position, and the public should have the right to know the closing position. I have said that this bill is not intended to intrude in normal bargaining relationships — and it's not. We're merely dealing with disclosure. We're merely dealing with the first meeting's results and the last meeting's results. That's all; nothing else. I have said repeatedly that we do not want to intrude in the bargaining process. This is not an intrusive bill. This is a bill that requires public disclosure of the first position and of the last position prior to a work stoppage; that's all. It is not intended to intrude.

I quite agree with the hon. member that there may well be position papers and documentation to support claims made by either side as negotiations proceed. This bill is not intended to capture that kind of information. All we're saying is that the public has a right to know the positions that start the process and the final position that has failed to resolve it prior to a work stoppage. That's all. It is not intrusive, hon. member. It is not intended to impede or

[ Page 11521 ]

interfere In any way with the other pieces of labour legislation that are in place.

MS. CULL: Mr. Minister, last time when I was bargaining as a public sector employer, we spent several weeks of initial meetings — I don't know how many meetings there were; It certainly was well past the first session of bargaining — establishing the ground rules for bargaining. We hadn't even exchanged the lists of what we were going to consider in the agreement.

Two days after the first meeting when we decided who was going to sit on what side of the table and where, how many staff there could be, whether there could be observers and God knows what else, there was nothing that could have been tabled. There was no summary of matters, because the list hadn't even been presented at that point to the other side. So how can this section work? Two days after you've sat down and decided whether you're going to negotiate around a round table or a square table or the other kinds of things that have to be sorted out in the dance of collective bargaining, there isn't even a list of things that might be disputed. There may not even be documents prepared at that point.

I can't see how this section is going to achieve anything except for a decision that so many people can be in a room and that they're going to meet every Monday until the agreement is reached.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I suspect that even that lack of information might be useful for the public to know.

Interjection.

MS. CULL: The member for Prince Rupert (Mr Miller) has suggested that perhaps you can file a paper with nothing. It's not a lack of information. It's just that in the initial phases of bargaining you haven't put that list forward yet. You don't know what matters you will consider to be in dispute, because you haven't given them to the other side, and the other side hasn't given you their list.

You can tell that a matter is going to be in dispute once you see the list of items that have been tabled by the other side. You'll know whether you agree with them or whether they won't be in dispute. That's the issue. It's not the list of items that are going to be discussed or negotiated; it's the list of items that you consider will be in dispute.

I don't know how any employer or union representative could know whether they are going to dispute something until they've seen the list from the other side, which they may not get for several weeks into the process.

Does this mean that if you are in the situation that I've just described, what will be filed is nothing, because we haven't seen the list?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: That's entirely possible, and we understand that. But once again I repeat: that piece of evidence itself might be useful for the public to know. It may be useful for the public to know that some sides in a labour dispute might wish to protract the discussions ad nauseam or might wish to start from nowhere and spend endless hours arguing about whether the tables should be round or square.

Even that would be a useful piece of information so the public will know how their public business is conducted.

However, the bill recognizes that that may be the event, and that there may be the possibility that nothing is filed because there is nothing filed at the first meeting. We understand that.

The opening position is not nearly as important as the final position which results in a work stoppage or precedes a work stoppage. That's the critical issue. But if both sides come to the bargaining with a wish list, then we're saying that it should be made available within two days of the first meeting. That's all. There's no great harm done if they wish to spend endless hours arguing about the size of the table or the number of participants. I suggest to you, hon. member, that if that Is the case, it's useful for the public to know that.

MS. CULL: I have to make a final comment on the minister's reply. The answer on whether there is a set of negotiations that carries on for some time and talking about wasting the public's time and the public's money shows quite clearly that you don't understand the collective bargaining process.

What has to happen initially is the development of trust, and that kind of thing takes some time to be worked out as the bargaining committee sits down. It may involve lengthy negotiations about who's allowed to be there, whether media will be involved and when releases will be done. All kinds of things can be sorted out.

Last night when we were talking about the principle of the bill, I brought up the matter of many bargaining teams trying new ways of approaching collective bargaining, particularly in school districts. They are trying to establish a whole new set of procedures for bargaining. Those things take time, and after the first day you may only have established the schedule for bargaining. You may not have got into any of the stuff that would be of interest to the public.

MR. G. HANSON: I think it's interesting that this bill has come in from the Minister of Finance and not the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Jacobsen), because I don't know if the minister introducing this bill has ever actually participated at the bargaining table.

He's been a mayor and Finance minister, and he's looked after the purse-string settlements of agreements, but I don't know that he understands the dynamic of collective bargaining. I know his staff do. I've had occasion to sit across the bargaining table from staff. The dynamic of collective bargaining is based on goodwill, trust and a dynamic that doesn't necessarily relate to the bean-counter mentality that the minister often refers to, where lists are tallied up, numbers are made and the number of clauses in the

[ Page 11522 ]

agreement and the number of pages of paper on the table are listed and compared with the first day and the last day.

[11:15]

That's not the way collective bargaining works at all, and this is designed to thwart bargaining. This is designed to impede bargaining. This is designed to have bargaining conducted in the community newspapers and through the PR exercises of the parties — who has the bigger communications budget to push their point of view and how many ads they can buy on TV to protect the particular pages they filed on the first or the last day. It doesn't make any sense.

My question is: was the Minister of Labour involved in drafting this and in assisting in the principles of section 3?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This bill is a government bill. Obviously the government was involved in the drafting of it. The Minister of Finance is bringing the bill forward because it deals with the important issue of public sector bargaining, for which the Minister of Finance has a lead responsibility.

It also comes forward by the Minister of Finance — as I explained last evening — because this is a subject that has been widely discussed across the country by myself and my colleagues, including the federal government. There is a realization that public sector settlements have historically been — in the last 12 months — exceeding private sector settlements by 3 percent. Therefore it is deemed to be an issue that all of us who have a responsibility for setting public policy should address.

As a consequence of those nationwide discussions — all of which have their base in the economic problems Canada faces — it was deemed appropriate that I should be the lead minister in introducing this bill. It should be patently obvious to everybody on the opposite side that when these divisions have been called, every member on this side is present, and every member is supporting and standing.

You should put out of your mind, hon. member, any confusion as to why I am bringing the bill forward rather than the Minister of Labour. We believe that the Minister of Labour has a responsibility to maintain as much harmony and peace as he possibly can in the labour sector and that he has a responsibility to appear at all times to be above disputes and acting without bias or fear of favour.

We understand that this requirement for the public right to know might be seen by some involved in a labour area as indicating that the Minister of Labour is intruding into this area of public disclosure. It might be interpreted by some as indicating a bias. It seemed to us in the public interest and in the usefulness of this bill that the Minister of Finance be the one who brings it forward.

MR. CLARK: On a point of order, I don't believe there's a quorum here, Mr. Chairman. I call a quorum.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will resume on section 3. We have a quorum now.

MR. MILLER: I would defer to my colleague from Victoria.

MR. G. HANSON: That's one of the awkwardnesses of sitting behind the Chair. I notice I'm addressing the Minister of Finance's empty chair. There will be little difference in terms of the quality of the debate.

The point I want to make on this section is that it reflects the lack of understanding of this government that the government, as an employer, always has to safeguard the abuse of having the ability to change the law. There are no other employers other than government that can themselves change the rules with a stroke of a pen, dismiss rights, benefits and clauses and change the ground rules for negotiations.

Here is an example where Treasury Board is involved in providing the ground rules for bargaining. This should more appropriately come from an independent body such as the Minister of Labour. We used to have a Public Service Commission In this province — a government employee relations bureau — which was charged with good labour relations In the public sector. Now we find Treasury Board intruding right into the ground rules of bargaining, and they are not equipped. They don't have the understanding. They don't have the commitment to being a model employer. The government should be a model employer. That doesn't mean that it should be more generous or more lavish, but it should be just. It has an obligation to be a just and fair employer and to indicate to the broader society what a good employer behaves like.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

My point is that this is designed by Treasury Board without reference to progressive, modern labour relations. You wouldn't see this kind of legislation in Scandinavia. I'll bet that this legislation does not occur in Sweden. I'd be very, very interested for you to produce any evidence that this kind of legislation exists In any progressive labour relations society.

To tally up lists of clauses and pieces of paper.... This section is designed and targeted against the teachers. You're targeting the next group to the bargaining table; that is clear to all of us here. That is going to be another kind of run-up to the next election window. Who's in the barrel next? How can you try and move numbers because you're crawling along on your belly in the polls? You are so far behind; that's why you're so edgy and hurt so bad and indicate it in this House with your aggressive posture— because you're trailing so badly. You're looking for a target, and you're targeting public sector workers. Public sector workers are least able to defend themselves. They're your employees.

We've had a history....

[ Page 11523 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finance on a point of order.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We are discussing section 3. The kind of comments the hon. member is expressing now were heard last evening. The member is not on the point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 3 deals with first proposals for conclusion, renewal and revision of collective agreements to be filed. I would ask that the first member for Victoria proceed in that way.

MR. G. HANSON: My contention is that the provisions of section 3 are an attack on the employees of this provincial government. The people who serve this House, carrying out their mandate on behalf of all of us and providing services to the public, are being attacked by the employer. The employer is the Treasury Board. I'm contending that the Minister of Labour would not agree in any other forum to having Treasury Board design the labour relations framework for negotiations. It betrays a lack of understanding in collective bargaining, the dynamics of it, the good faith and trust required to come to a mutually agreeable settlement. This is a Stalinist bill. This is a bill totally inappropriate to this House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order. Once again the first member for Victoria strays from relevancy to section 3, which has to do with first proposals for conclusion, renewal or revision of collective agreements to be filed. The member has not mentioned any of those issues in his debate.

I note that the member was absent last night and therefore didn't have a chance to participate in second reading debate. However, if he's not enough interested in the bill to show up in the House, I believe that's his problem, not the problem of this committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Victoria knows relevance is of prime importance in dealing with section 3.

MR. G. HANSON: I think my point is well taken. The implications of section 3 are to provide undue interference in the free and democratic rights to collective bargaining which were granted by an NDP government in 1974, for the first time in all those horrible years between '52 and '74 when government employees had no rights in this province. And when they were granted free collective bargaining rights, this government has done nothing but introduce legislation like this to roll back their rights and the provisions freely granted to them.

This section does interfere with bargaining. It is going to be more costly to bargaining and will not produce the results stated by the minister. I want to indicate my opposition and state that this is a device to thwart bargaining in this province not produce satisfactory and mutually agreeable settlements.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I note from the comments of the opposition that they see section 3 as interfering in the democratic process. By association, I guess we can assume that it is interfering in democracy if the public gets to know what people are demanding and what the employer is offering in a contract dispute, what the costs will be and what the fight is about.

I'm primarily interested in the socialist view that the public — which is affected by every public sector dispute and settlement, since they pay the bills — has absolutely no right to know what the fight is about, what It's going to cost or what the demands and the offers are. And they say that that is an interference with democracy? Well, I don't want to live in that socialist state.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, this section deals only with first proposals. I'm going to deal with it here, although parts of what I'm going to say will be reflected in subsequent clauses. But this one says that both the employer and the employee have to file their summary, their respective positions and any documents within two days of beginning negotiations. Suppose that neither one of them does so. What's going to happen? Well, let me tell you: nothing is going to happen. There is no real requirement in this bill for anything to happen, because if they don't file, nothing's going to happen. Nothing has to happen until either an employer or an employee — a group who wants to strike or lock out — can't do so because they haven't had the necessary documents filed.

For a government that thought there wasn't enough labour confrontation going on in this province, because they did their best with Bill 19.... But everybody ignores it, so it goes past. I guess they decided they'd put this in. Well, I'll tell you, it can also be ignored. There's no reason in the world that anybody should have to file the first documents, because if they don't, it isn't going to matter. May I put that to the minister?

[11:30]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Finally I have a direct question to respond to, so I am keen to fulfil my responsibilities by attempting to answer.

I guess the member was out of the chamber when the member for Oak Bay tried to make the point that there may well be nothing to file on the first meeting. She said they might well waste many hours and meetings discussing whether the table is round or square and how many people might wish to attend, and therefore there's nothing to file. I responded to her by saying: "Quite right. There may well not be." We understand that. We're saying that if there is an opening position, however, then it should be filed. In the event that there isn't any opening position, the public might consider even that piece of information valuable, when they finally come to assess and weigh the potential for a work stoppage. But the key here is, once again, the public having access to whatever information is tabled by either side in a public-sector dispute: both their opening position, if they have one — and if they don't, as I say, it's useful for the public

[ Page 11524 ]

to know that — and the closing position. It's a simple as that. There's no need for penalties In the event that they don't file. They may well not have anything to file. It seems to me that the members of the opposition are trying to have it both ways in the interests of consuming the clock. But so be it. We're paid to be here, and I'm delighted to be here in this marvellous atmosphere learning from each other.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister missed the point again. He seemed to have missed the point when I asked him what he was going to do in the beginning when there weren't any position papers. He finally got it when the second member asked him. Now I'm asking again: what is the point of the section when in fact nobody needs to file anything at all? If they don't file anything at all, even the fact that they don't have a position, perhaps they are going to ignore the registrar. It doesn't matter, Mr. Minister. There is no penalty in place for that. There is no requirement that they do so except that it says so here. If they don't do it, there is nothing that's going to happen to any of them. So what you're doing is simply setting up a clause that has no force whatsoever, and what is the point?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: So what are you arguing about?

MS. EDWARDS: I don't usually answer the questions from the other side, but I thought that that was an interesting question. What am I arguing about? I'm arguing about whether this legislation has any purpose whatsoever. If It doesn't have any purpose whatsoever, what in heck are we doing standing here in the Legislature wasting time discussing it? The minister wants to play at games and pretend that he's trying to bring sunshine into the negotiating process, when all he's trying to do is put a whole bunch of bureaucracy and red tape and unnecessary structure Into the negotiating process.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: That's right. You got it.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'm having trouble understanding the minister here. Not five minutes ago he stood up and berated the entire opposition for eating up the clock and wasting the taxpayers' money, and two seconds ago he stands there and says: "I've got lots of time. That's what we're being paid for."

I think he has just as much trouble understanding this bill, because as he has just indicated, it's quite easy for both parties under section 3 simply not to file anything, or to file blank pieces of paper with the registrar, because section 3 doesn't make any difference. He says it will contribute to the bargaining process even if they submit nothing. The minister may feel that by saying nothing, doing nothing and submitting nothing you're accomplishing something — and that's obviously the way he runs his Ministry of Finance — but that's not the way it works in collective bargaining.

Why is the section in there? Why don't you just simply remove the section, Mr. Minister? If there is no penalty and there is no requirement for anybody to file, to set forth any documents, to put forth any positions, then I'm sure we will quickly see both sides simply ignoring section 3. If one side puts forth the position and the other doesn't, what's the point of continuing bargaining? So will the minister consider withdrawing section 3?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, again I'm having some difficulty understanding the intention of this section and also the interpretation. I've listened carefully to what the minister had to say with respect to the intent. At one point, I think I'm correct in quoting you as saying that the intent is that the public should know the opening positions of the parties and the closing positions — at least the position that would exist prior to an actual dispute. I believe that's generally what you said. And it was not the government's intention to interfere in the process.

In response to specific questions about the applicability and interpretation of these three parts of the section, that — as my colleague for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) pointed out — in terms of the opening meetings that normally take place with respect to negotiations, if the parties have not fully developed their agendas in terms of exchanging them within the two days, you said something to the effect that it would be useful for the public to know that they hadn't got it together to actually have something on paper. Somehow the public would know that.

Then you went on to characterize the negotiation as being somehow not proper or not taking place properly and somehow the parties weren't bargaining properly. For example, you mentioned that the public should know if the parties.... These were your words. You went on to say that if the parties were taking a long time to deal with their negotiations, that was a matter of interest to the public.

You made a number of statements that contradicted your original statement that this section was not intended to act in any way to interfere with the process. You went on to point out that factors that are quite irrelevant to the bargaining between the two parties should be made public. You talked about time as somehow being a material aspect of negotiations. You said that if the parties were taking a long time — somehow suggesting they were wasting time — this matter was of importance to the public. You are contradicting yourself, are you not, Mr. Minister? Given your first statement that the public really were entitled to know only what the opening position and the closing position was, do you not feel you've really contradicted yourself?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The contradictory and convoluted logic lies with the members opposite. On the one hand, we've heard speaker after speaker on section 3 trying to make the point that the section

[ Page 11525 ]

will not be usable because it's not enforceable. Therefore this section is irrelevant.

If that's the case, one would assume the members opposite would be less inclined to filibuster for a half hour — or what may well be building up into an hour — over a section they don't think is necessary. If they don't think it's necessary or will apply, then why are they spending all the time on it?

The fact is that this is a key section. This is a very important section, and the members opposite know it. The members opposite know full well that the public may need to take some comfort from knowing what the opening positions might be on either side — labour or management — particularly if they are outrageous opening demands. I suspect that's the reason why you are focusing in on section 3. I suspect that's the thing you are afraid of. I suspect that's really the Achille's heel of your opposition to this whole bill.

You have a paranoia about responding to the union bosses who may perceive this as an intrusive bill, when in fact all we're saying is that the public has a right to know what the opening positions might be in any public sector negotiation. That's all we're saying. They have a right to know.

You are trying to manufacture the argument that you can't enforce this, therefore it will be ineffective. Someone else tried to manufacture the argument that frequently there was no opening position. It would be useful to the public to know whether there is an opening position or if there is not an opening position. It may be particularly relevant to the public if either one of those opening positions happens to be an outrageous one or one that's not supportable.

Clearly we are rambling on and on about an issue that some members of the opposition think isn't going to be used anyway, and therefore I wonder why they're so excited.

MR. MILLER: I'm a bit disturbed. Perhaps the minister might want to reconsider some of his remarks. He seems to be suggesting that the outrageous position will always be held by the union. Is that your view? Is there a bias? How would you characterize an outrageous position by an employer, for example?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: There are all kinds of historical proofs that both sides in a labour dispute frequently take unreasonable positions. What I did say, hon. member, if you read Hansard, was that either side's outrageous demands are possible, and indeed management often has been as irresponsible as union bosses with their opening bargaining demands. I'm well aware of that, and I concede the point.

Once again, I think all that illustrates is that this is not a biased or slanted bill. This is a bill that ensures the public of a right to know. That's all. The public have a right to know — nothing more, no editorial comment, no manipulation of facts or data; just a place where the public can get the opening positions of both sides, if there is an opening position. If there's not, fine. But why would any responsible employer or union leader not want to file their opening position if they had one? It seems to me that the issue you're trying to fabricate here doesn't exist.

Clearly, if you work on the assumption that both sides In a labour dispute are responsible and public-spirited -particularly if they're dealing with public sector issues — there's no reason for them not to comply with this requirement if they have an opening position. I am quite happy to concede they may not, in which case they don't file — no problem. There's no great damage done. The key here is that if they have one, they file; if they don't, fine. But they must disclose the information that is available which they share with each other so the public can access it.

MR. MILLER: just to confirm, then. The minister is saying that indeed an employer could have an outrageous position." If an employer was looking, for example, for cuts in wages, you would concede that that could be outrageous — that it would be unfair and that you would disagree with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 3 pass?

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, this guy gets up and slams labour every time he gets to his feet. Every time he gets to his feet he talks about the labour bosses. Talk about an agenda.

So we've clarified that point. The minister won't get up and talk about the employer's demands but is very free to talk about what unions might request. We know where you're coming from.

He talks about time being a factor. He mentioned it specifically in debate and earlier. I presume he felt that time was a factor, that negotiations should be conducted expeditiously and that somehow the public would object, or even he would object. He would object somehow if there was a bit of time.

Has the minister ever sat in on or conducted any negotiations? Do you realize that sometimes you can have a pretty short set of bargaining meetings that result in a lengthy strike, or, alternatively, you can have a long set of bargaining that results in a settlement? Do you know that?

How about your negotiations with the doctors? It seems to me you entered into negotiations, and then the government said: "We're not going to negotiate anymore; we're going to appoint a royal commission, and you guys have to wait for two years." Is that in the minister's definition of reasonable time? Get off it!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Order!

MR. MILLER: Yes, order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Read the bill.

[11:45]

MR. MILLER: I've read the bill. We can't get the minister to answer basic questions. We do know, however, that this section, "a summary of all matters that each of them consider will be in dispute," could

[ Page 11526 ]

in fact be, by the minister's own admission, a blank piece of paper. We have a bill that the minister brings in with a clause — you must have spent some time drafting that one — that could actually be a blank piece of paper. Do you require a signature on the bottom or is just the blank paper enough?

MR. G. JANSSEN: Section 3 says that the employer and the employee must bring forth their documents and must bring forth their positions. Just recently in the public nurses' dispute, the employer was identified as the Ministry of Health and the employees were the nurses. Yet we saw the Minister of Finance become involved in that dispute. In fact, he went to the nurses n his own constituency and made them an offer. Who was the employer in that case? Who was involved in the bargaining? Would then the Ministry of Health be required to put forth its position and also the Minister of Finance put forward his position? I'd like some clarification on that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can be very brief. The member for Alberni has just exploded the argument made by the member for Prince Rupert. The member for Prince Rupert was waxing poetic that this was strictly demanding labour to put its position but not the employer. The member for Alberni says the legislation clearly says that the employer and the union must put their respective positions on the table.

It would seem that the public's right to know and the public's right to judge is that much better if they are informed. If the employer makes a ridiculous offer, and If the union makes a ridiculous request, that will become obvious. I think it should. It would save a lot of time.

MR. LOVICK: I would like to point out a particular concern that I have with section 3 as written. I'd like to pose some questions, if I might, to the minister. I'm going to do so by means of a scenario that I think is entirely credible and plausible and could happen under this. I ask the minister to point out the error in that scenario if there is one.

We all know that what has happened in trade unions today is that we have clauses that are somewhat different from the traditional industrial union kind of contract. We have things dealing with areas such as provisions for maternity leave, for day care and to protect employees against sexual harassment. These are some examples that immediately come to mind. I want to sketch out for the minister, as I say, a scenario dealing with one of those areas, namely sexual harassment. I want to point out to him why I think — this is merely one small illustration — section 3 is simply unacceptable, impractical and unworkable.

Let us assume that the bargaining unit, the members of the trade union, decide that they want to introduce into a contract — not necessarily a first contract, but a contract — a clause about sexual harassment. Let's further assume that what happens is that the employer quite legitimately says — and we have, Lord knows, how many examples on record of this — that's it's not a problem in this company or in this operation. "I've never heard anything about sexual harassment. Indeed," — says the employer — "I can't believe such a thing would happen. I think I know all the employees and nobody would do that kind of thing."

What can also happen is that the union, the bargaining committee presenting that package on sexual harassment, knows of three particular cases which have been private. They have not gone anywhere because there isn't any provision in the existing contract to protect against it and because existing human rights legislation is inadequate. Therefore they don't feel comfortable doing that. They have therefore not taken it beyond that to protect their own members' interests.

In other words, we've got a problem. People who are alleged to be victims of sexual harassment have quietly lobbied their own trade union for that kind of clause to be inserted into the contract. What this provision would do, it seems clear to me, Mr. Minister, is demand that the trade unionists, or the trade union bargaining committee, must put down on the table the fact that they are asking for the sexual harassment clause. Moreover, section 3(e) states: "...any documents that each of them has submitted or will be submitting to the other in support of their respective positions."

If you want to argue the case that there is a sexual harassment problem and if the employer denies the validity of the claim and you have three cases to support the proposition, you're going to have to name the people who are alleged to have been harassed. What we do thereby, Mr. Minister, is victimize the victims yet again. We in fact invade their privacy. We make their predicament public information. That's the scenario.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I know that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has difficulty following any argument that is in any way subtle and therefore has just left. But I trust that this minister, with his advisers, can indeed follow.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: The reason I put him down — to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) opposite — is because I'm tired of listening to those rather flippant, fatuous and facile comments coming from the other side, from people who don't have the courage to stand up here and make the comments. Instead they do it in the background. That's the reason for the put-down. I don't do that with anybody who doesn't provoke it, Mr. Minister, as you might like to note. Carry on and you may get an illustration of the point.

I'm suggesting to the minister that here is a credible, legitimate scenario, and I offer the minister

[ Page 11527 ]

an opportunity to point out to me what's wrong with that scenario.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I submit to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, that that is not a credible scenario. He's trying to fabricate a totally fictitious situation, which is extremely unlikely to ever arise. Certainly at the opening position, within two days of the first meeting, which is what we're talking about here.... I consider it ridiculous to suggest that there would be that kind of detailed, documented information dealing with personalities in any large, major firm.

It's just not on, in the first place. The hon. member can go on at some length fabricating other situations, I suppose. But back to where we started, before the member started dragging this out.... We're really only dealing with the public's right to know the opening position, if there is one, of both sides of a dispute — that's all — and that information will be filed.

It has been suggested they won't do it, and how are we going to force them to do it? We say that even failure is a useful piece of information for the public. They take exception to that and somehow suggest: "Therefore it's not going to work, don't put it in." I say if it's not going to work, what are you worried about? I say the fact that it's in there is useful; it's a useful piece of information. In particular it's useful if either side of a dispute had an outrageous opening position. In that case, I think it is valuable for the public to know.

Once again, let's just stand back and look at what the bill does. It is not intrusive. It merely ensures that information can be made available to the public and ensures that both sides have an appreciation of the fact that it's public money they're spending and that it's the public who will have to pay any bills that ensue from any agreements that are not within the public's ability to pay.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I wish I could take some comfort from the response of the minister to the scenario I sketched out. But if he persists in saying that it is simply "extremely unlikely," and thinks that that is a substitute for an argument to show what's wrong with this scenario, then we're in trouble.

I'm presenting a case to you that I have carefully developed. It isn't a wild-eyed imagined case; it's a real case. The minister demonstrably knows nothing about collective bargaining and is instead a cipher, probably for the Premier, in this debate. He is demonstrating conclusively that he is embarrassed because he doesn't know anything about collective bargaining. I'm suggesting to you a scenario that could happen, and I'm asking you to prove that wrong. Show me why that would not happen.

Let's go through it again for the minister. The union decides it wants protection against sexual harassment. It wants to make that an opening position. It has also, by the letter of this legislation, been required to submit the documentation in support of the proposition. The employer denies the validity of any kind of sexual harassment occurring on the job site, The union then, in order to make its own case stick — obviously to maintain any credibility in the public's eye — by this legislation has to provide documentation to support the conclusion.

What other documentation can there be except the names of the individuals and the circumstances of the case? And that invades the privacy of those individuals. That victimizes the victim yet again.

Mr. Minister, I challenge you to show me how that could not happen. It's a perfectly credible scenario. We're talking about people's lives. We're talking about people's reputations. We're talking about people's most private and significant anxieties and experiences. This stupid legislation in the name of a red herring, a canard about public disclosure, is going to humiliate those individuals.

You show me what's wrong with that analysis. Go ahead, Mr. Minister, if you understand the thing. I don't think you do, quite frankly. Go ahead. Show me what's wrong with the analysis. Talk to your official. Okay, you want to play rough, eh?

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, this clause and the debate on this clause demonstrate clearly how silly this piece of legislation is.

The minister says only the opening position has to be filed with the registrar, and if there is no opening position then they don't have to file anything. One wonders why you need this clause at all. I can't see it working in the way that the government suggests.

What if a member of a public sector union says: "Well, we have to file a summary of all matters, and each of them we consider will be in dispute"? What if they say: "Well, we don't think anything's going to be in dispute. We have a reasonable employer, and we're convinced they will agree with everything we put forward"? I assume it's acceptable for them to write to the registrar: "We are confident nothing will be in dispute. Signed, the union." That seems to be appropriate under this clause. Or maybe the union could say "More," and sign it; and the employer could say "Less," and sign it. That's probably acceptable too under this section.

What the minister has said in the course of the debate that's most instructive is that we're really not interested in the opening demands. We're not that interested in it anyway. We're not going to have tight legislation to compel that. We're really interested in the final demands and the final proposals before a strike.

The real political intent of the legislation is clear. The real attempt to politicize the collective bargaining process even further in the public sector is very clear by the minister's responses to questions on this section. They know this section is wide open. They know — and the minister has admitted it — that it would be very easy for either party to avoid the filing requirements under this section by any of the techniques I've suggested: by not exchanging proposals on the first day, which is quite common; or by waiting three days before proposals are exchanged, which is also quite common and would avoid this

[ Page 11528 ]

section completely; or by such generic or general terms that they become essentially meaningless.

The minister has convinced us even further of the stupidity of the legislation. I'm sure it's very illuminating for any individuals or organizations that have to live with the legislation. The minister's comments have really assisted with parties understanding how stupid this legislation is and how easily this clause can be worked around. Rather than this other layer of government interference — at least at this stage of the bargaining process — they can work around this unwarranted interference in the collective bargaining process, work around this hoop, work around this bureaucracy. At least at the outset of collective bargaining there's no need at all to file any proposals.

The minister knows, or should know — I'm sure his staff knows.... In any collective bargaining I've been involved in, virtually every day there is a flurry of papers back and forth, suggested wording on clauses, suggestions on how they might approach a particular problem, suggested people to work on particular problems— all of the debate that goes on in negotiations that are very lengthy, particularly with some large public sector unions and employers. None of that is sunshine. The light isn’t let in on that process.

[12:00]

The minister said: "We have no desire to impede collective bargaining, so none of those documents have to be filed. None of them have to be public Only the opening demands have to be made public, but then if the opening demands aren't tabled for two days, they don't have to be public either."

It's really a bizarre piece of legislation. We've said that before. But this clause and the minister's response really demonstrate how silly and stupid and political it is. They don't really care about that aspect; they're more concerned about trying to inflame a situation in a strike, with respect to a teachers' strike probably, to get something happening to take attention off scandals and other problems the government has had. That's the real agenda here with this legislation. Section 3 is rendered completely meaningless by the response of the minister this afternoon.

MR. LOVICK: I'm going to try once more to see if I can elicit some serious answer from the minister The minister was heard to say not too many minutes ago that he was prepared to sit here as long as might be required to get through this particular measure, and I'm pleased to hear that, but I would dearly hope that that wouldn't be a matter of simply sitting on his proverbial posterior portions and not answering questions. If he believes in any kind of open and democratic and consultative process, which he claims to do, he has some obligation to attempt to allay our fears and answer our legitimate questions.

My question had no purpose behind it to inflame or to suggest a doomsday scenario. It's predicated on some pretty basic and safe assumptions on what is actually happening in terms of trade union negotiations going on today. I sketched out a scenario that I think is credible in every sense of the term. Sadly, the minister's response is to say that that's unlikely.

I'm asking again, as dispassionately as I am able, if the minister will seriously attend to the question that I pose to him. It is a serious question, Mr. Minister, and if you pause to reflect on it, I think you'll recognize it's a serious question: that what we are doing here, perhaps, by this measure, is compromising individuals' privacy and indeed their dignity.

I think it is a very serious problem, a proposition that demands some attention from this minister. I would therefore give him another opportunity.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 3 pass?

MR. LOVICK: Well, it's not going to pass, Mr. Chairman. I'll give the minister notice right now: it's not going to pass from me for a while. I can certainly carry on posing the same questions with different forms so they won't be either tedious or repetitious.

I wonder if the minister could tell us: is your adviser someone from the Ministry of Finance, or somebody from the Ministry of Labour? What expertise do you have available to you to answer these questions? Perhaps that's the problem; perhaps you don't have anybody who knows much about collective bargaining. Would you be good enough to tell us who this official is?

AN HON. MEMBER: Low blow.

MR. LOVICK: No, I hope I'm wrong.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We've seen exhibited almost daily in the last two weeks the sleaze tactics of the members opposite. The suggestion that we are somehow deficient in terms of staff advice in bringing forward legislation I find offensive on behalf of all staff members of government.

MR. JONES: Point of order. In this chamber on many occasions — and I think we've slipped recently — the term "sleaze" has been defined as unparliamentary and has been withdrawn on numerous occasions in this session and previous sessions. I'd ask you to call that member to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is correct. We have. The words "sleaze" and "sleazy" and so forth have been commented upon on numerous occasions. Perhaps the minister would withdraw that.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, Mr. Chairman. I didn't say "sleaze members"; I said "sleaze tactics." You supported a point of order earlier this morning by the House Leader opposite, who also pointed out — properly so — that aspersions against individuals were unparliamentary and needed to be withdrawn.

I've heard derogatory comments incessantly this morning about this bill by the members opposite. I haven't chosen to rise on a point of order, because I assumed that you would rule that we weren't dealing with personalities with these critical comments and

[ Page 11529 ]

therefore they could be allowed to say anything they wanted.

All I said was "sleaze tactics, " and I think that's a pertinent and applicable statement. I wasn't talking about sleazy individuals. "Sleazy" individuals has been ruled by the Chair as being inappropriate and unparliamentary, and I agree with that. I wouldn't stoop that low. I refer only to tactics, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It isn't necessary to argue with the Chair, and I accept what the minister has stated about the uses of the word. This whole debate would be much more meaningful and useful if these little diversions would cease and desist and we get on with dealing with the various sections in the bill.

I notice the opposition House Leader wants to rise to his feet.

MR. ROSE: Not only want to, I intend to.

Mr. Chairman, it's usually a courtesy to the House during debates on estimates and other sections of the committee stage of the bill, if a minister has an adviser assisting him or her, to introduce that person. That person is unknown to us, or else we wouldn't have asked the question.

I certainly make no suggestion that your adviser is not equipped to advise you in these matters.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: You never did.

MR. ROSE: Well, he asked. If that question was considered rhetorical, if it was some kind of a stigma or some sort of an insult or some sort of a belittling remark applied or thought to be applied to your assistant, then I am quite sure that he is man enough to withdraw it.

Certainly it's not intended, as far as I am concerned, and I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to assist us and introduce his adviser.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I was trying to do that when one of the members rose on a point of order, and I had to sit down before I could complete the task.

I'm very proud to say that I'm associated with Mr. Gary Moser, who is the assistant deputy minister of the government personnel services division of the Ministry of Finance. I'm pleased to tell the House that I have worked with this individual for a number of months now, and I have found him to be a man of great integrity and ability who Is respected by all sides of the bargaining table. To suggest, therefore, that we are getting less than adequate advice on these matters I find offensive. That's clearly not the case Mr. Moser deserves better treatment at the hands of the House than he has received.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, I thank the minister for his remarks, and I would remind hon. members that casting any aspersions against anyone in this chamber, regardless of who they are, is not acceptable.

We are dealing with section 3, and I believe the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) has something to say.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, it seems to me that the person who is not treating his able assistant with the proper dignity and respect he ought to be receiving is the minister himself who, in the course of my entire line of questioning, has made no effort whatsoever to consult with somebody who has expertise. Instead he has given me his predictable, rather silly answers suggesting that what I'm sketching out is extremely unlikely.

If the minister wants to rely on the expertise of his assistant, Mr. Moser, I would be delighted. I would be delighted to hear an analysis from somebody who has ability, knowledge and background in this field to answer my question.

Why is the minister reluctant to talk to somebody who knows something about the field? He demonstrably does not know anything about the field. That's my point. Because the minister refused to do that, Mr. Chairman, I therefore said I would like to know whether he does Indeed have that expertise available to him. I'm delighted and thrilled that he has it here. Why doesn't he ask for some of it? Why doesn't he consult with the people who have the expertise he requires? Then he might be able to answer my question in some serious way as opposed to the rather silly way he has done thus far. I give him the offer again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've mentioned earlier this morning that there's no requirement that questions be answered. I would just remind members of that once again. I would also remind members of the necessity for relevance when we are dealing with these things. We're dealing with section 3.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: With respect, Mr. Chairman, the members opposite have had a wide-ranging discussion far beyond section 3. It is clearly repetitious.

The members opposite want it both ways. If I consult endlessly with my staff about technical details, then I receive criticism that I don't know my job and that I have to rely on staffs technical help to survive the reasoned, wise onslaught of the members opposite. On the other hand, if I find myself able to answer a question without guidance or assistance, I get criticized for not using the staff who are here. I don't know how I'm supposed to deal with myself in order to earn Brownie points with the members opposite. There's nothing I would love better than to earn Brownie points with the members opposite.

I've sat here quietly for the last half-hour and heard disparaging comments about my apparent, alleged lack of experience in labour negotiations. Three or four members have successfully ridiculed me — or attempted to — regarding my background in labour negotiations. I have stood before this House many times and said.... I have never tried to introduce myself as being the sole fount of all wisdom. As

[ Page 11530 ]

my wife tells me frequently, I am wrong much of the time. I'm willing to concede all of those things.

But when it does come to a matter such as labour negotiations, maybe I should advise the House that I was mayor of a local municipality for about nine and a half years. In that capacity I negotiated many contracts with public sector employees. I was also chairman of the Greater Victoria Labour Relations Association for a number of years. In that capacity I had responsibility for many more public sector contracts. I was also president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and in that capacity I had reason to make myself familiar with labour-management issues and contract negotiation issues throughout all the municipalities of this province. I've also been involved in the private sector, through having my own companies. In that capacity I negotiated my own labour contracts, frequently with outside help, because as the members opposite point out, I'm not the best, the wisest, person in the world to be conducting my own affairs. You know what they say about lawyers: they should make sure they hire someone other than themselves to represent them.

I've had all of those experiences. It's not appropriate for the members opposite to try to characterize me as being totally ignorant on the issues. I don't pretend, however, to be all-wise either.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate that answer very much — that touch of the biographical. It's useful. Needless to say, some of us are incredulous that this legislation would come from somebody with that background, because it seems to a number of us who have looked at this thing that what we're dealing with here is, quite frankly, incompatible with collective bargaining as most people understand the term. Collective bargaining by definition is analogous to something like a poker game, in which....

MR. PETERSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Again members of the opposition are slipping back into what is apparent to me as second reading of this bill. We completed that last night. Would he please keep his remarks — I would ask you, Mr Chairman — to the point of discussion, which is section 3 of this bill in committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will continue with his relevant remarks.

MR. LOVICK: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the fact that you understood the relevance of them, even if the member opposite couldn't. So be it.

The issue I was presenting is simply that this document — and this particular measure, section 3(c)(d)(e) — is very clearly incompatible with collective bargaining as most people understand that term, Indeed as that term Is defined In this particular document.

[12:15]

The nature of collective bargaining is that it is a bargaining. It's two sides not tipping everything they have in advance — one to another. Unless we're into some new system like final-offer selection or a different model of collective bargaining.... But if we aren't into some variant theme of collective bargaining, and if we're talking about that larger generic term, collective bargaining, this particular provision and this entire measure strikes me as entirely inconsistent with — and indeed contradicts — the concept of collective bargaining. It's asking people to put all their cards on the table.

Now nobody who has any experience in bargaining is about to do that. Instead, what will happen more likely is that the two sides are going to lie. They're going to misrepresent their particular case. In other words, they'll put something on the table that isn't in fact what they're really after, and that again is simply a result of the nature of bargaining itself. One side wants something that the other side doesn't want to give. That's the nature of an adversarial system called collective bargaining. This particular measure of making the entire process wide open and supposedly letting the sun shine in effectively contradicts the quintessential nature of collective bargaining itself. I'm happy to see that the minister is listening to these observations and comments, and perhaps he would like to respond. I'd appreciate hearing his response.

MR. ROSE: I observed the minister consulting with the expert to whom we were just introduced, and I was hoping that perhaps as a result of that discussion we could have a little more eloquent and revealing kind of response to a very important question.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, it boggles the mind. I'd love to have television trying to capture this. Just marvellous!

Anyway, I answered the question about half an hour ago. The question dealt with a hypothetical situation....

Interjections.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As I remember it — it was in the distant past — it dealt with the very serious question of a union negotiator wishing to introduce protections against sexual harassment in a contract. The member opposite tried to make the case that in that instance, section 3 would require the disclosure of names of individuals and proof of the need to address this subject.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. If I misrepresent the case, I'd like to be advised. I don't know what the member's laughing at. I'm trying my best to assure the member that I heard what he said. I'm doing my best to capture the principle around which he wanted me to speak.

MR. ROSE: For clarification, it was entirely another subject. I didn't try to unnerve the minister by laughing at him. There are lots of times I could have, but at this time I wasn't.

[ Page 11531 ]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Clearly the member was not listening to what I was saying. I often get criticized for not doing that myself. It's useful to see the other side are often equally guilty.

Back to the point. The member was fabricating this case that this employer has the potential for....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The first member for Nanaimo tried very assiduously to get a response to his question. He's now got a response to his question, so if he could remain quiet in his seat while the minister finishes answering the question, it would be helpful.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I give up. I just give up.

MR. LOVICK: just to clarify, Mr. Chairman, you're absolutely correct; I was entirely out of order to be making those comments as the minister was answering the question. I was bothered, however, by his particular choice of words suggesting that the case I was presenting was absolutely silly and didn't have substance. If I misunderstood his intention In that, then certainly I would apologize. I would be more than happy to sit down and listen to the rest of the minister's answer, because I appreciate that he has finally got around to giving me one.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: If the member refers to Hansard — I think we publish it for the morning session and the afternoon session; this would be in the morning session — he will see that I did respond to his question in the morning session. I pointed out to him that I consider it — and the government considers it — very unlikely or almost impossible that the opening meeting would get into such specific detail. I can agree with the member that the opening meeting might well introduce the subject as a desirable bargaining issue. If it did, fine and dandy; that would be on the list. But I do not agree with the member that it would be very likely that the opening meeting would have supportive documentation naming dates, names, events and all of that kind of thing to make the case.

We just heard — for the first two hours' debate on this issue — others of your colleagues trying to make the point that this section wouldn't be used at all, and in fact there would be nothing to report. I said: "Fine. If that's the case, no problem." Now you are fabricating a case that I think and the government thinks is very unlikely to materialize. You are trying to make a case that it would be used. I really don't know what the members opposite are saying. Do you think it will be used, or do you not? Why don't you have a caucus and a vote and determine among yourselves whether it will or will not be used?

I say to you that irrespective of that vote's outcome, it's still desirable to have the public knowing whether there was an opening position by either side in a public sector bargaining issue.

MR. LOVICK: If I might respond very briefly to the reference to whether it will be used or not and the opposition being inconsistent in its questioning by arguing on the one hand and the other hand. With all due deference, Mr. Chairman, the point is that both of those scenarios are entirely plausible, given the way the legislation is drawn. That's why we have enunciated those two particular analyses which are, to be sure, quite different and contradictory. But those interpretations have validity because of the way the legislation is drawn. It's not well drawn. That ought to concern the minister, rather than the strategy he deems the opposition to be using. The problem, in short, is with the measure brought forward today under this minister's name. That's the predicament. Let's make no mistake about that.

Back to the other point. The minister can tell us about the government's view, his ministry's view, his own view — using the kind of scenario of what could happen I sketched out a while ago — that that is highly unlikely. However, if we read the document before us and if we read this section, what I have described is not unlikely. It is quite plausible. It says here very clearly in black and white that within two days the parties will file with the registrar a summary of the matters they consider will be in dispute. I sketched out why it could be that a sexual harassment clause would be in dispute: because the employer says we don't need it; there's no problem with that particular measure.

The second thing that the clause says is that the two sides must file with the registrar their respective positions on each of the matters referred to. They must indeed enunciate their case.

Thirdly, and most significantly, they must file any documents that each of them has submitted or will be submitting — or will be submitting! — to the other in support of their respective positions.

You can say, Mr. Minister, that it's highly unlikely and you can't imagine it happening. The issue, however, is whether this legislation allows that to happen. Insofar as it allows that to happen, we've got a flawed bill. That's one reason my colleagues and I are speaking out strongly against this particular section of the bill.

MR. CASHORE: The point that my colleague from Nanaimo just made is right on. Listening to the fog that's coming from this minister, this section is at worst bizarre and at best ambiguous. He is saying what his interpretation of this would be, and my colleague is referring to what the bill says, what the section says.

The fact remains that this section is calling for all of the cards to be put on the table. It's calling for a process to take place that doesn't work in negotiations.

The minister cites his credentials, saying that he has been involved in labour-management issues in

[ Page 11532 ]

his position as a mayor. I cannot boast that kind of experience. But I have been involved in a great many disputes among different parts of the community, and I've realized that if you force the participants to put all their cards on the table at the very beginning, you participate in a very mischievous interference in a process — a time-honoured process — that needs to take place appropriately. This bizarre section of this bizarre bill, dropped at the last minute, when there isn't adequate time to properly research it due to the way it's being fast-tracked and rushed through, is simply inappropriate.

I would like to put a question to this minister. If he really believes in this approach to bargaining, let's just think of a situation for a moment where he is attending a federal conference of ministers of finance — all the ministers of finance from the provinces of Canada and the federal Minister of Finance — and there are certain things that he goes to negotiate. I want to ask the minister: would you function in the same way in that setting, where you would expect to put all your cards on the table? Do you think that would represent the interest of British Columbia or an appropriate way of resolving anything?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I believe there were three questions. The answer would be yes, yes, yes.

MR. CASHORE: Then the record shows, Mr Chairman, that this minister would put all his cards on the table at the beginning of a bargaining session where he was meeting with the first ministers and the federal Minister of Finance. He would put all his cards on the table; that's how he would negotiate on behalf of the people of British Columbia. Is that what the minister is saying?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The members opposite have a great facility for extrapolating comments and twisting them to their own convenience.

MR. CASHORE: You just said yes.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The answer is yes, Mr Chairman. I would have no difficulty complying with the requirements of this bill in any negotiations with the federal government, because In fact that's what I do. When I go there I often disclose my introduction paper. I often do that because I'd like to have the comfort that the public, if they have any trouble with my position, would be able to give me their views — and I think it's public business that we do.

I'm not at all ashamed, and I don't think there's anything at all wrong with letting the public know what issues we are going to discuss at such a meeting. Furthermore, this bill would require that the final position before.... I don't know what the consequence would be in a federal-provincial relationship relating to a work stoppage. In any event, the final decision about a work stoppage, for example, should similarly be the subject of public disclosure. I don't have any trouble with that, hon. member. In terms of your comparison to federal-provincial relationships, you just look at my record and you will see that often I have introduced the B.C. discussion paper.

But back to where we started. All we're trying to do is give the public access to the opening position of either side of a public sector dispute, If they have an opening position. The member from Nanaimo went on, at some length, fabricating a case that he felt should not be disclosed in the opening position. I said: "That's a fictitious case; it won't arise." But the vast majority of your members, hon. member, in this morning session, that is, talked about that the fact that this section wasn't really needed because it'll never be used anyway; you'll have blank papers. One member said: "Will you require a signature on the blank paper, Mr. Minister?" All these absurdities.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

You really must caucus, because I think you have a difference of opinion within your ranks. I gather you support the member from Nanaimo, but the first three or four speakers this morning clearly would not, because they were making the case that it is not necessary. So with respect, once again you have a thoroughly divided caucus unable to determine what your position is on this matter. It is clearly evident to all of us in attendance here that your sole purpose is to consume the clock. That's fine; we get paid to do that, and I'm delighted to sit here and attempt to learn something from these extraneous comments that you people keep bringing forward. But it would be very useful if at least you had a common position, because I'm at a total loss to know what your position is on section 3. I heard speech after speech about the fact that it wouldn't be used and wasn't necessary. Now I'm hearing fabrications about how totally it might be abused. Which is true? Will it be used or won't it be used? And in either case, is that against the public interest?

[12:30]

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 36

[ Page 11533 ]

NAYS - 15

On section 4.

MR. CLARK: If it will assist the Chair and the minister, we can deal with section 4 and section 5 at the same time, because they are the mirror image of each other.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll deal with section 4 first, hon. member.

MR. CLARK: Fine, Mr. Chairman. I thought it would expedite business.

Section 4 is the real agenda from the government's point of view. I have a number of questions with respect to it. In labour negotiations, what often happens is that no agreement is reached on individual sections until there's a package. You go through and negotiate individual clauses, you come to a tentative agreement, but it's subject to agreement on the entire package.

What ends up happening is that there is no agreement on individual sections, because it's all subject to the final package being presented. That's very common; in fact, that's a very necessary part of negotiations. In fact, some things that are agreed upon earlier — tentatively agreed upon subject to the package — are ultimately traded off in the final analysis for something else.

One of the problems with this section and section 5 that follows is this: "...summary of all matters on which agreement has been reached." It seems to me that most labour negotiations people would say no agreement has been reached because it's before a strike or a lockout. All those tentative agreements aren't worth anything, because we haven't come to an agreement on the package. The whole package has to be agreed to separately. I can think of no trade union or employer who would agree to any change to any clause in a collective agreement in advance of agreement on the entire package. As a result of that, it's likely that you would get no summary, nothing that has been agreed to, because it has all been tentative.

To carry that just a little further, this bill makes it even more difficult to come to any agreement in advance, because you don't want to trade that off. You can give in a little on certain things to the employer, or the employer can give in to the union on certain things — all subject to something else, usually wages. It comes down to wages because other items cost money.

That kind of strategic negotiation takes place every day in British Columbia, particularly in the public sector, and this bill conspires against that. It conspires against it by trying to make the parties put down in writing what they've agreed to. I suspect they'll say they have agreed to nothing. It means that even signing off certain clauses may be more difficult, given the powers that the registrar has to make those public. That could be a real problem.

Even signing off — even making tentative agreements — might now be more difficult with this section, because the registrar or one party can make those tentative agreements public. The registrar might choose to interpret them as agreement, that agreement has been reached on certain matters.

To make the case that I have tried to make various times, this proposal does not advance the cause of collective bargaining or resolution; it does the opposite. These two particular sections are areas where that is the case. A summary of all matters on which agreement has been reached simply won't happen, because agreements won't be reached on clauses in advance of the final package being agreeable to both parties. I think this again demonstrates at least a failure to understand the collective bargaining process. Given the minister's comments and his involvement in collective bargaining, I would be very surprised if he doesn't agree with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize a new member, I would like to state in answer to the request of the second member for Vancouver East at the beginning of the discussion on section 4 that we will allow the discussion to cover sections 4 and 5, but we will call the votes individually.

MR. CASHORE: The point I was making in the previous section applies to this section too. Again, this is a further manifestation of this minister having said that all the cards should be put on the table. The minister, in response to that, said that when he goes into the negotiating process in federal-provincial relations, he does put all the cards on the table.

The minister admitted why he's doing such a lousy job as the Minister of Finance for this province, because having taken that approach, what he has done by putting the cards on the table.... If he'll reflect on it, as a result of doing that he lost the Polar 8 contract; and as a result of saying that the feds were spending too much money they then cut back transfer payments to B.C. and he lost them; and he had to delay the opening of the House because he believes in putting all the cards on the table. That's his approach to negotiations. It's not an approach that's in the best interests of British Columbians, and it's not an approach that's in the best interests of labour relations.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam makes an interesting point about putting all the cards on the table. That's exactly what the previous section.... I believe sections 4 and 5 also propose that if a union serves 72-hour strike notice, or if a lockout notice is filed, then all the discussions to that date have to be put on the table for public scrutiny. When that happens, of course, the public will review the entire matter. When the 72 hours runs out, then the strike or the lockout will continue.

[ Page 11534 ]

Can the minister tell us what will be resolved in the interim of the filing of these documents and being made public?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 4 pass?

MR. G. JANSSEN: Obviously the minister doesn't expect anything to happen by the filing of these documents. They'll be out there for public review. Everybody will be able to read them. Does he expect the public to pick up the telephone, phone the various employer and employee negotiators and say: "This is what I think"? Does he expect that to alter their positions? Obviously if they've been negotiating for what could be months on end-and we've seen contracts go sometimes a year of hard bargaining, sometimes into the wee hours of the morning.... The minister expects that by making the documents public, public pressure will then be brought to bear?

[12:45]

Obviously slowdowns occur during the bargaining process. Services aren't provided at their regular pace. The employer sometimes cuts back hours of work, overtime, that sort of thing. Sometimes lays off employees, extra staff and so forth in order to bring pressure on the union and the union members. These negotiations go on. Hard bargaining takes place time and time again. Yet the minister expects that by filing public documents before the strike notice, somehow, miraculously, a strike can be averted. Is that what the minister expects? By filing these documents, by making them public, he can avert a strike? Mr. Minister, is that the intention of these two sections?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 4 pass?

MR. G. JANSSEN: Obviously we're not going to get any answers from the minister. As is being unveiled here during our discussions, this was a hastily drawn up bill, presented to the House at the last minute. They were hoping they could rush it through and nobody would notice. He doesn't have any answers. He doesn't know what the legislation is to produce or what results we will see from this new "sunshine bill, " as he refers to it in the preamble.

There has to be some conclusion to legislation. We don't simply bring legislation before the House to debate among the representatives of the people because we're here to get paid, as he said, and can sit here all day. There must be some basis for legislation, for laws being enacted. But obviously there isn't any, because when we ask questions on the bill about the intent of certain sections or what the results might be, the minister doesn't seem to have any answers Therefore we can only conclude that it was a hastily drawn-up bill, that many of the sections are irrelevant and that the entire bill should probably not have been brought before this House in the first place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would just like to state that we're talking about section 4 and not about the general relevance of the bill.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Sections 4 and 5, Mr. Chairman, are as irrelevant as this entire bill. Unless the minister can demonstrate to us In this House the relevance of section 4, of filing these documents, and if there will be a bargaining chip, a moving forward of negotiations that somehow end up stalled and that's why strike notice has to be served.... If there's some result of that, perhaps we can see why we should be supporting this legislation. But obviously there isn't any.

As in the section before these, sections 4 and 5 don't seem to draw any conclusion or result; they simply throw it out to the public. The public can look at it, but it's not going to alter whether or not there's going to be a strike. It doesn't alter the fact that 72-hour strike notice has been given and that the strike goes ahead anyway.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Well, what are you opposed to it for?

MR. G. JANSSEN: He just wants to pass legislation for legislation's sake. Is that it? Mr. Chairman, we have to pass legislation in this House not for legislation's sake, but so that there will be some improvement in the lives of the people we represent. That doesn't seem to be happening with this bill. Unless the minister can demonstrate to us what the result of these two sections will be and that mankind will somehow move forward, averting strikes and bringing collective bargaining to a more fruitful result, I don't see the relevancy of section 4 or 5.

MR. MILLER: We are, in terms of the clause-by-clause debate, attempting to elicit from the minister just how these sections will work specifically, and asking a number of very specific questions about what if this and what if that. Disappointingly enough so far, In terms of debating this bill, we've come to the conclusion that: (a) the minister doesn't know; (b) what does it matter; and (c) it may not be workable, but who cares? That in itself seems to be rather foolish.

The concern I have with 4 and 5 is that — as previously mentioned by my colleague from Vancouver East — it's likely, were I on either side of the bargaining position, that I would be reluctant to concede that agreement had been reached on any matter, because by doing that you would be giving up a bargaining position. You would be prejudicing your future bargaining position by making that admission at that stage. That applies equally to both sides in the dispute.

So I think that's a fatal flaw in terms of the practical application of this section. So first of all, that would be one scenario that could, and I think would, very likely develop.

Certainly my experience in bargaining — and it's in the private sector — has been that bargaining is very much a lot of ins and outs, and experienced bargainers are hard to come by, people who know how to read the other side, and who take those signals back in trying to determine what you should

[ Page 11535 ]

give on and what you should press harder on. It's very tough and difficult, and it requires a depth of experience in order to do that.

Any bargainers worth their salt would, In my view, with respect to (1)(b) of 4 or 5, or (1)(a) for that matter — actually, they both have to be taken together — tend to not make commitments or foreclose any options they may have for future bargaining sessions. There's the very real result flowing from this that the documents submitted by both sides wouldn't jibe. You could have both sides to the negotiations, if they've fulfilled the requirements under (a), (b) and (c), having completely different documents. When you relate that to the so-called public right to know, it would seem to me to lead to a great deal of public confusion in trying to interpret what these two parties are up to.

Given that you're going to legislatively require both parties to file documents that the public can view, have you considered in that context a prohibition on either side using other means to reach the public? Will they still be allowed, for example, to advertise, to conduct a public campaign about their respective positions in a dispute? You have been quite vocal in commenting on disputes; would you restrict your comments? Would you refuse to conduct a public campaign from your office about a dispute involving public sector employees that you would be bargaining with? Would there be a requirement that there be an absolute correlation between the documents filed and any statements made publicly?

I just think that you've opened up an impossible area. It has no practical application to the bargaining process, and it raises all kinds of subsequent issues about the activities of both parties In other public arenas. I think you should try to clarify that to some extent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall sections 4 and 5 pass?

MR. MILLER: Just for the record, I'd like to point out that the minister refuses to respond to those questions. Ultimately, I suppose, if the government is foolish enough to proceed with the bill, he will be required to answer the question for the public at some stage. If you're thinking that the sun is going to shine in, it won't be the sun, Mr. Minister; it will be a spotlight and it will be on you, and at that point you'll regret not having answered the questions here and clarifying the matter in this House.

Sections 4 and 5 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 37

NAYS - 11

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan tabled the twelfth annual report of the Science Council of British Columbia for 1989-90.

On behalf of the Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker), Hon. Mr. Richmond tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Crown Lands for the period April 1, 1988, to March 31, 1989.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:03 p.m.