[ Page 11839 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Property Rights Act (Bill 90). Hon. Mr. Fraser

Introduction and first reading –– 11839

Taxpayer Protection Act (Bill 92). Hon. Mr. Veitch

Introduction and first reading –– 11840

Oral Questions

Petro-Canada land near Fantasy Gardens. Mr. Clark –– 11840

Sign language translation for televised debates of Legislature.

Mrs. McCarthy –– 11840

Petro-Canada land near Fantasy Gardens. Mr. Clark –– 11841

Mr. Sihota

RCMP involvement in Fantasy Gardens investigation. Mr. Sihota –– 11841

Owen inquiry Into administration of justice. Mr. Harcourt –– 11842

Water quality. Mr. Perry –– 11842

Mental health centre psychologists. Mr. Perry –– 11842

Presenting Reports –– 11843

Tabling Documents –– 11844

Compensation Fairness Act (Bill 82). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Veitch) –– 11844

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Clark

Mr. Gabelmann

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Third reading

Division

Constitutional Amendment Approval Act (Bill 81). Second reading

Mr. Lovick –– 11854

Mr. Bruce –– 11855

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber –– 11856

Mr. Rose –– 11857

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 11859

Constitutional Amendment Approval Act (Bill 81). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) –– 11860

Third reading

Municipalities Enabling and Validating, 1990 Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 84).

Second reading

Hon. L. Hanson –– 11860

Mr. Blencoe –– 11860

Hon. L. Hanson –– 11860

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 85). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Rabbitt –– 11861

Mr. Sihota –– 11861

Ms. Smallwood –– 11862

Hon. Mr. Rabbitt –– 11862

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, there are those who, when they celebrate a birthday, should be reminded how much we appreciate them. There's one such person, for whom we all have a tremendous appreciation, celebrating his seventy-first birthday today— our Deputy Speaker. I would ask the House to join me in extending him congratulations.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Sitting in the members' gallery today is an Australian Member of Parliament, Mr. Gary Johns. Mr. Johns is the federal member representing Petrie, Queensland. Please join me in welcoming Mr. Gary Johns to the House.

MR. ROSE: While I'm on my feet congratulating Senator Pelton on his seventy-first birthday — congratulations, condolences or however he wishes to take it — I thank him for a very nice lunch to which he invited the Australian Labour MIP from Brisbane just referred to, Mr. Gary Johns. I too would like the House to give a big welcome to Gary Johns, M[P.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's indeed a pleasure to rise in this assembly today on behalf of the second member for Delta and myself to welcome from Seaquam Secondary School some 26 students and their instructors: Mr. McLeod, Mr. Koot and Mr. Widen. Would this House please make them welcome.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon there are two people. Mr. Erik Hoel, a businessman from Saanich who has just acquired an agreement with the Mexican province of Yucatan to introduce British Columbia technology into that country. He will be working with the environment ministry of Yucatan to help solve some of their sewage problems.

With Mr. Hoel this afternoon is Mr. Vernon Crompton Woodward. "Woody" Woodward distinguished himself as one of Canada's greatest fighter pilots in World War II. Joining the RAF in 1938, "Woody" Woodward went immediately into flying training and soon received an appointment as a pilot officer. As a pilot he flew with 33F Squadron, quickly establishing himself as an outstanding pilot noted for his leadership and daring. He was awarded the DFC in 1941 for his outstanding courage, having destroyed 11 enemy aircraft, and in 1943 he was awarded a bar to the DFC and credited with 20 enemy aircraft destroyed. He ended his wartime career with 25 confirmed and 11 probable enemy aircraft destroyed. Wing Commander Woodward's career in the RAF spanned more than 25 years in service in Rhodesia, Egypt, Crete, Malta, Germany and England. He left the RAF with the rank of wing commander.

I believe we're very fortunate in having Mr. Hoel and Mr. Woodward with us here today, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. GABELMANN. In the gallery today is an old friend of mine, Dulcie McCallum, who acts as the legal counsel for the Canadian Association for Community Living. With her is a friend from Germany, Carolin von Schlippenbach. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. DIRKS; Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon visiting us again is Tony Joy, the British consul-general from Vancouver. Would the House please make him welcome.

MR. BRUCE: As you well know, one of the prettiest spots in British Columbia is the Cowichan Valley, and in the Cowichan Valley one of the prettiest spots is a little area called Maple Bay. Today in the House are 27 grade 5 students and their teacher Mr. Logan. Would you please make them welcome. It's a great place, and why don't you all come up and visit us there sometime?

HON. MR. RABBITT: I have two introductions to make today. Though not wanting to get into debate on the prettiest spot in the province, I have some constituents from that great little riding of Yale-Lillooet. They are three brothers: Ron, Jerry and Ken Sanders. I'd like the House to give them a warm welcome.

Also in our gallery today is Ian Munroe, the general manager of our liquor distribution branch, and with Ian is a gentleman by the name of Lawrie Dyer. Lawrie joined the liquor distribution branch in 1975 as director of finance and, over the 16 years spent with the LDB, has become known as a dedicated public servant and a man of extremely high principles. Lawrie also gained a high level of respect from co-workers and suppliers alike. Lawrie was appointed to the position of acting general manager of the LDB in 1990 and did a terrific job. I ask the House to join me in thanking Lawrie Dyer for his years of dedicated service to government and in wishing him well in his retirement.

MR. COUVELIER: One of the jewels of my riding is Galiano Island. We were fortunate this morning to play host to a group of grade 5 students from Galiano Elementary School. They were accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Maneker, and several adults. I ask the House to help me give them a belated welcome.

Introduction of Bills

PROPERTY RIGHTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Property Rights Act.

[ Page 11840 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing we believe in in British Columbia it's the rights of property and the enjoyment of property or all British Columbians. This act is designed to accomplish that objective. It is the first such stand-alone legislation in the country, and accordingly, I urge its swift and early passage.

Bill 90 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.

TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Veitch presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Taxpayer Protection Act.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Speaking briefly to it, Mr, Speaker, this act provides for the concrete foundation for long-term fiscally responsible government and long-term fiscal finance that places the rights of the taxpayers first and foremost in the province of British Columbia.

This act achieves its goal in two parts. First, the act regulates a freeze on provincial tax rates in British Columbia, unlike the policies of the opposition, which have been expressed by the second member for Vancouver East.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The rules on the introduction of a bill are abundantly clear, especially to an experienced minister like the one who currently has the floor. The rules are very specific about the simple nature of the statement and that it not be argumentative. Perhaps the minister would refrain from using his notes and speak just from whatever.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Speaking just from....

The second part of this act guarantees a balanced budget for the province of British Columbia over a five-year budgetary cycle. It accomplishes this by restricting general fund expenditures so that they do not exceed general fund revenues.

In addition, the act requires the Minister of Finance to table a debt reduction plan each year during estimates, outlining the government's program to reduce public debt. This act puts into legislation the type of good, sound fiscal management that has been the hallmark of every Social Credit government since 1952.

Bill 92 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.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps before proceeding with the next order of business Members of the executive council might advise their staffs to read the standing orders, which are very clear. When ministers are reading prepared texts which are in violation of our standing orders it's difficult for the Chair to understand how we've allowed it to degenerate to that level.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

PETRO-CANADA LAND NEAR
FANTASY GARDENS

MR. CLARK: I have a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister bring the House up to date on a review conducted by his ministry of the sale of land adjacent to Fantasy Gardens?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CLARK.. Has there been a review?

HON, MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well.... He has been in the House long enough to know that if there is a review or investigation in place about anyone, it would be inappropriate to discuss it in this or any other forum.

MR. CLARK: Was your predecessor asked by the Financial Institutions Commission for specific directions on how to proceed with the investigation?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what my predecessor was asked.

MR. CLARK: Can the minister advise the House what briefing he had from his predecessor regarding this question and the Financial Institutions Commission's involvement in reviewing the sale of land adjacent to Fantasy Gardens?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, Mr. Speaker.

SIGN LANGUAGE TRANSLATION FOR
TELEVISED DEBATES OF LEGISLATURE

MRS. McCARTHY: My question is for the hon. Provincial Secretary. Mr. Speaker, many British Columbians will be left out of listening to the debates of our House. Even though the debates are being televised, they will not hear the audio because they are members of the deaf community. My question is: will the Provincial Secretary make it possible for the deaf community in our province to be given the service of sign language translation of the televised debates of this legislative session and others to follow?

HON. MR. DIRKS: The first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain raises a very important point, and I'm very pleased that she has raised it in this forum. I'll be pleased to refer it to the Board of Internal Economy, which has jurisdiction over the televised debates.

[ Page 11841 ]

PETRO-CANADA LAND NEAR
FANTASY GARDENS

MR. CLARK: To the Minister of Finance. Will the minister confirm that the Financial Institutions Commission was awaiting directions on this matter — the investigation of the sale of Fantasy Gardens and the land around it — when his predecessor resigned?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member is going to unwarranted lengths to have me respond to something which he knows full well would be inappropriate to respond to. The answer is no. No is an answer.

MR. CLARK: To the Minister of Finance. Has the new minister had any conversations with officials in the Financial Institutions Commission about the Real Estate Act and the sale of the lands adjacent to Fantasy Gardens?

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Finance. On the first day that this House sat this month, I asked the minister to ascertain whether or not a commission was earned with respect to the sale of the. property mentioned by my colleague from Vancouver-East, and the [illegible] of that commission. Can he tell the House today the answers to those questions?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, Mr. Speaker. No is an answer. Don't you ever pray? Don't you know sometimes they're not answered? No is a definite answer.

MR. SIHOTA: Can the Minister of Finance explain why he has not taken any steps to inform himself of the issues raised in those questions and the questions I've asked today?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The member across the way is an officer of the court — a lawyer. He knows full well the questions he is asking are not appropriate questions to be answered in this House. The hon. member is always trying to bring assumptions to the House — generally assumptions of guilt, never assumptions of innocence. I will not answer that question, because it is inappropriate.

RCMP INVOLVEMENT IN
FANTASY GARDENS INVESTIGATION

MR. SIHOTA. It has been confirmed that the RCMP is investigating the matter of the Premier's involvement in Fantasy Gardens. Has the Attorney General received any representations from the federal Solicitor-General's department with respect to the scope of the RCMP's involvement in this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the question is out of order.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I will simply answer the question the way anybody in my position would answer it: I will neither confirm nor deny that such an investigation is taking place.

MR. SIHOTA. The RCMP has confirmed that this investigation is taking place, for the minister's information.

Will the minister confirm that the federal Solicitor General, Mr. Pierre Cadieux, has written to the RCMP with respect to this investigation? Can you advise the House of the extent of the federal government's interest in this matter?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since obviously the member is attempting to cause some embarrassment for myself, I'd certainly like some clarification on where it is he has received this so-called confirmation of some investigation by the RCMP . I think he should confirm that. I don't think it's fair for any member of this House to stand up and cast allegations....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I can only listen to one point of order at a time. I'd like to listen to the first point of order. I'm having difficulty trying to think which particular standing order has been violated. I want to deal with these one at a time. I'll deal with yours after I've dealt with the Premier's.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it's not only unfair, but it's also unbecoming for the House for a member to stand up and make suggestions which I'm sure he would have difficulty justifying or confirming — if at all. He made the statement that it's been confirmed by the RCMP that some investigation was ongoing. Frankly, I'm not so sure I would not prefer to have him say who confirmed and knew about this supposed allegation, as opposed to being tried through a lot of innuendo by members opposite and otherwise.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is bound by the rules that the members set for the Chair. Quite frankly, we don't have a rule that covers whether or not the information a member brings to the House is to be dealt with on a point of order. We have a difference of opinion, but there's no requirement for a member to stand in his place and confirm or deny what his sources are.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I agree with you entirely. I would also like to say that I resent the Premier giving lessons on behaviour, decorum and respect for our parliamentary traditions. I don't think this side needs that kind of lesson from the Premier at this time.

I would just like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this side asks the questions. It's up to the other side to answer them, and I wish they'd start answering a few important questions for British Columbians.

[ Page 11842 ]

MR. SPEAKER: We have had two points of order that are not points of order. Questions may be asked by any member of the House who is not a member of the executive council. One member on the government side, within the scope of the question, is required at least to answer some of the questions.

MR. SIHOTA: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney General: will he confirm that the federal Solicitor General, Pierre Cadieux, has written to the RCMP with respect to this investigation, and can he advise the House as to the extent of the federal government's interest in this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: If there are no further questions, we'll proceed to the next order of business.

OWEN INQUIRY INTO
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. The Owen inquiry made recommendations for a justice system that's fair and free from political tampering. Has the government now implemented the recommendations of the Owen inquiry?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, indeed, we have had a look at the recommendations from the Owen findings. We've all read the contents of that report with great interest. All of you will also be interested to know that the recommendations of the ombudsman are under review; you also know, of course, that one of them has already been adopted. So therein I have a progress report for you.

MR. HARCOURT: We now know that an RCMP investigation is underway with respect to the Premier. Recommendation No. 9 of the Owen inquiry states that in such cases a special prosecutor, independent from the Attorney-General, should be appointed to oversee the investigation and disclose the reason to prosecute or not to prosecute. Will the Attorney-General confirm that this process is now being followed with respect to this investigation of the Premier?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I will confirm nothing about that recommendation, with respect to the earlier part of the statement. What I will suggest to you with respect to recommendation No. 9 — and it's important to everyone in the room, let alone to everybody in the province — is that one standard of justice should apply to all.

WATER QUALITY

MR. PERRY: I have a question for the Minister of Health. There has recently been great concern around the province over outbreaks of so-called beaver fever. I always feel it's a bit unfair to the beavers. I haven't had many complaints from them; it seems to be mostly affecting people.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Health, given the concern of the public over contamination of water supplies, if he can explain why the regulation drafted by public health inspectors and the Ministry of Health for presentation to cabinet in 1988 has never been enacted. This was raised at the Royal Commission on Health Care last week by the public health inspectors in their brief. I wonder if the minister could explain to us what happened to that 1988 draft regulation.

MR. SPEAKER: The question fails to meet the test of urgency, but it does meet the test of a question that could be best put on the order paper so that the minister might be better prepared to answer it.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I can't answer what happened In 1988 because I'm more concerned about what's going to happen in the future.

We have put in place, Mr. Speaker.... If you ask what we are doing regarding this issue, we are meeting with the communities involved. There are some 1,200 purveyors of water systems in the province who supply water to a number of users, and the concerns respecting both beaver fever and other disease elements in water systems are being monitored on a regular basis. We intend to address it in a concise form. I am pleased the member brought it up after the matter was raised two or three days ago in the House when it was more urgent.

MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE PSYCHOLOGISTS

MR. PERRY: I won't get into a debate over the importance of that issue, but I have a different question.

The Port Alberni mental health centre has recently been obliged to dismiss a "psychologist" who was in fact a non-psychologist masquerading as a psychologist. At the same time, genuine psychologists are being laid off from mental health centres around the province, and a public storm of concern has been aroused about mentally ill people and victims of sexual abuse who will no longer have the services of psychologists in British Columbia. Can the minister tell us whether he has taken any steps whatsoever to protect those patients and clients of the mental health centres, who are having their therapy terminated as of March 31?

[2:30]

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, It's very difficult to respond to a general question, particularly when one relates to the Port Alberni situation. It displeases me to hear that he has already been found guilty in the eyes of the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey. I don't know the focus of his question. If he could give me some more details, I would be pleased to respond specifically to the question he asks.

[ Page 11843 ]

Presenting Reports

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands, and I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, by leave I move that the rules be suspended to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

MR. BRUCE: I move that the report be adopted , but before calling the question I would like to make a few remarks with respect to this report.

This is the second report of the standing committee. As you will recall, colleagues, the standing committee brought in a first report in June 1990. At that time the two issues that we had been dealing with were log exports and the Vancouver log market. In releasing the first report, the concept behind what the committee was attempting to achieve was to have a more thorough review by the forest industry as to some of the recommendations or observations that had been made by the committee, looking for much greater input than we felt we had achieved in the first session.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House a few points in the report itself. The forestry sector, as we well know, is a very important part of the economy of the province of British Columbia — indeed, the economy of Canada. I think it's important that we in this House understand what is happening in the forest resources industry, particularly as it pertains to the two issues that were put to this committee.

In respect to the Vancouver log market — one question that was given to the committee to attend to — I draw to your attention comments on page 13 of the report, when you have an opportunity to review it. In the conclusion of the committee, "the Vancouver log market displays features inconsistent with a freely, competitively driven marketplace." That is because in the view of the committee, although there are a number of buyers and sellers which do take part in the Vancouver log market, there are a much greater number of buyers than there are sellers, to the degree that it offers an imbalance of how that market could be more competitively driven.

I think the other point to make very clear to everyone is that the Vancouver log market deals primarily with the coastal log market and not the interior. Our recommendations and observations make mention of this as we move to it later on in our conclusions.

The B.C. log-marketing system has with it a number of points that we would like to see involved in the aspect of a market. In our first report, in dealing with the Vancouver log market, we came back with an observation that perhaps we should be seeing the market now expanded and actually brought into being as a British Columbia log market system. This did bring a fair amount of debate and consternation by some members throughout the industry in the province. However, I think it is something that the Ministry of Forests may want to take to a greater step and look at in further detail.

There is a fair aspect of trading that takes place in the Vancouver log market, and this comes back to the aspect of tenure in itself. One can't trade unless one has timber to trade. That observation is drawn in the report itself. When the government looks at the report as presented, and the House deals with it, one should also be cognizant of the fact that most of what is related to the forest sector today will find itself back to the issue of land tenure.

As I mentioned, it is important that one understands the difference between what takes place in the Vancouver log market on the coast and what actually transpires with the trading, buying and selling of timber in the interior. I believe our observations reflect that.

The other aspect that is important to note regarding the question of log exports is that the committee has determined — and there's mention of this on page 18 — that log exports since the turn of the century have averaged less than 2 percent per year of the allowable annual cut, with the exception of the 1930s. From 1930 to 1939, log exports contributed proportionately more to provincial revenues and averaged about 8 percent per annum.

The point to bring to everyone's attention is that we often hear of a tremendous amount of timber being exported from the province. Fact will bear out that that has not been the case. If one looks at these numbers, dearly the sole role of the export issue — as it relates to the coastal sector, obviously the percentage will be higher.... Overall export of timber from the province has averaged less than 2 percent and is falling rapidly. The committee acknowledges the steps the ministry has taken in an effort to reduce the export of timber from this province, and believes that with those steps we are now to a point where concern is being expressed that from time to time it is useful to have a certain amount — albeit a small amount — of timber export taking place in British Columbia.

The other point the committee would like to make is changes we think would be necessary to improve the issue of log exports with respect to those that hold tenure — either tree-farm licences or forest licences. It's the committee's view that those who hold tenure should not be granted the right to export timber unless they are in a position as a market logger — that is, a holder of a forest licence who does not own or hold an interest in a secondary processing facility. In this instance, perhaps under qualifying circumstances, that person or company could be exempted from this recommendation. The point is that those who have already been granted tenure have been given a very important endowment in holding tenure and should not be given the right to export. We would offer that to the government to take under consideration.

[ Page 11844 ]

The nub of it all, with respect to this report, is that it was first given to us as an issue to deal with in May 1989. In June 1989, the Forest Resources Commission was struck, and in the terms of reference of the Forest Resources Commission, one of the issues to deal with is the question of land tenure. Truly, if you are to deal with any substantive issues dealing with the Vancouver log market, you must first deal with the question of land tenure. Because the Forest Resources Commission is doing that, this committee decided that it would only, in respect to the Vancouver log market, issue a report that has observations rather than recommendations. However, it is the view of the committee that the issues as presented relating to the issue of log exports could be taken by government and dealt with.

I think it's important to note that your committee concludes that the tenure arrangements by which the Crown allocates timber-cutting rights must be modified to reflect the current and future needs of the province. This may entail the gradual and evolutionary movement toward a different tenure system than what we have today.

In summation, it is redundant for your committee to consider tenure and related matters within its terms of reference which are being scrutinized by the British Columbia Forest Resources Commission, The committee concluded early in its inquiry that the current system of tenure employed in the province is a handicap in resolving issues affecting the forest industry in British Columbia today — specifically, any meaningful revision of the Vancouver log market. Until the British Columbia Forest Resources Commission concludes its review of land tenure, any changes to the Vancouver log market would only amount to a temporary solution. As I mentioned, the recommendations as they apply to the question of log export are something we believe the government could deal with today.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the report now be adopted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Savage tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Parks for the period commencing April 1, 1989, and ending March 31, 1990.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROSE: I notice, Mr. Speaker, that in our standing orders Wednesday is considered an optional sitting day. We haven't had one for three years on which we did not sit, but I wondered if this Wednesday was a special one, and whether we could expect to be sitting here debating or, in fact, be off tomorrow.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I had every intention, before we proceeded with the business of the day, to report to the House from the same rule book as the opposition House Leader. Under section 2(2), the House shall not sit tomorrow but instead will reconvene at 10 a.m. Thursday.

Having said that, I call committee on Bill 82.

COMPENSATION FAIRNESS ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 82; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 10.

MS. A. HAGEN: I do have a couple of questions I'd like to pose to the minister on this matter of compensation plans, which we are led to understand cover almost all aspects of working conditions in the workplace: the hospital, the school, the community college or the care facility.

Let me pose a question around the ability-to-pay issue and what's included in the compensation plans. I'm going to use a school board as an example simply because at this stage school boards are finalizing their budgets according to the School Act for their next school year. If the board has the ability to pay its employee groups, as determined by its passing a budget at the end of this year that encompasses the collective agreements reached with its teachers and support staff, will the commissioner have the right to go into that board's business and make recommendations about the compensation in the agreement, including the working conditions that may have been part of that agreement?

HON. MR. VEITCH: So that we can clarify what we talk about when we speak of compensation, compensation has been expanded to include work practices, work rules and working conditions. This section is significant because it is here that the commissioner can demand costing on an unfavourable work practice — like a class with a pupil-teacher ratio that is too small — and factor that into the compensation plan. Implementation changes or discontinuation could impact ability to pay.

[2:45]

If they signed a contract after January 29 or if they were in negotiations during that period and signed after January 29, no school board would be under any dubiety whatsoever. They understood my letter. They were notified by letter that they would fall under the terms of this particular legislation. Any school board would file with the commissioner a compensation package showing that they have the ability to pay. If they have an ability to pay, then that would be all there would be to it. If they do not have an ability to pay and could not show where they have an increased ability to pay, the compensation package would be sent back to the school board or whatever government entity happened to be sending in that compensation package.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to be very clear about what the commissioner's prerogatives are in respect to this ability-to-pay argument and the board's bud-

[ Page 11845 ]

get. Let's put it in very simple terms. The boards right now are dealing with two very important aspects of their year's work. They either are concluding or have concluded negotiations with most of their staff — that could be teachers, CUPE, support staff and all employees who work for a school district. And they are concluding and must conclude by law — I think by the end of this month, the 31st specifically — a budget as prescribed by the School Act. We all know that boards and their staffs are working diligently to achieve both of those objectives.

The objectives are achieved in this way. We have a signed, negotiated collective agreement between the board and its various employee groups. And we have a budget which is indeed a budget based on the government's ability-to-pay argument, namely a budget that fits the framework of the funding that this government, and this government alone, determines is available to that board — unless a board goes to referendum. So the agreements are in place, and the board has done its budget work and has a balanced budget in terms of projecting its plans about how it intends to run its district for the next year. I think what the minister just said is that this law would require that board to file a compensation plan, and that would be the end of it. It would simply be on the record. Or is the minister saying that the board does not have to file a compensation plan? My understanding is that the board would have to file a compensation plan with the commissioner.

Following through on that argument about ability to pay, if the board has a budget relating specifically to the budget that has come down from the Minister of Education, it has demonstrated an ability to pay, and the whole issue is in fact done with. The board gets on with implementing its agreements and managing the budget that it has prepared. Does the commissioner have any role in the affairs of the board at that time?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, if this hypothetical board of school trustees had signed an agreement of whatever kind that was signed and ratified prior to midnight of January 29 of this year, there would be no need to file any package at all with the commissioner. If this hypothetical board had reached an agreement with all of its support staff members, teachers and everyone else and had filed that package with the commissioner, and they had the ability to pay from all sources — the funding they get from the provincial government, the tax base or, indeed, a referendum if they chose to take that route — there would be no problem, either.

If this same hypothetical board we're speaking of signed an agreement with its employees that exceeded their ability to pay, they would have done it in defiance of an act which they knew was coming before this Legislature and would have de facto been defying this Legislature.

MS. A. HAGEN: If the board completes its budget at the end of March, as it is required to do, and in that budget it deals with the agreement it has signed with its employees after January 30 — we'll put it in the context of this legislation — and if that budget is within the dollars that have been allotted by your government, because that's 99.5 percent of the dollars a school board has, does the commissioner at that time have any jurisdiction other than the filing of the compensation package? Is that the sum total of what is required?

If I could just carry it one step further, because I've used this example.... Supposing at this stage, looking ahead, the hospital labour relations body, which is in negotiation with the BCNU and HEU, arrives at an agreement which then goes back to the various hospitals — Royal Columbian, Burnaby General, the Kamloops hospital, Royal Jubilee and so on, If those boards, within the framework of the agreements that have been negotiated, develop a budget related to those signed agreements, does the commissioner have any prerogatives in respect to those agreements?

HON. MR. VEITCH: If the collective agreement, which is included in the package sent to the commissioner, meets the test of ability to pay.... I'm assuming that the hon. member is saying that they have met that test and have the necessary funding within their budget, which meets the test of the ability to pay. Then it would be a matter of the commissioner simply accepting and filing it. They have the ability to pay, and there would be no further need for the commissioner to have anything to do with the particular entity until the next turn of negotiations.

MR. CLARK: Just to follow up, Mr. Minister, would you agree that if a school board negotiates a collective agreement with their employees and their budget is balanced.... Of course, all of their revenue essentially comes from the provincial government now. They have no taxing authority. They have a referendum option.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK. No, they don't anymore. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, but the minister is interjecting. They do not get any money now. It all comes from the provincial government. The block funding has been changed.

Now that the minister is clear, they have no taxing authority; that was removed by this administration. It comes from the provincial government. So their revenue is determined solely by the block funding formula. If they enter into an agreement with their employees, whether it be 2 percent or 20 percent, and can balance the budget within the allotted dollars out of the formula, then would you not agree that by definition they therefore have the ability to pay?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The compensation package will be sent to the commissioner, and the school board would have to satisfy the commissioner that indeed the school district has the ability to pay. If they have the ability to pay, that would be all there is

[ Page 11846 ]

to it; and if they don't have the ability to pay, then they would have to convince the commissioner that they have some additional ways of raising revenues whereby they would have an ability to pay. The commissioner would have no more to do with them after that.

MR. CLARK. I take it that the minister is essentially agreeing with me — he's nodding his head — that if the school board can balance the budget, it really doesn't matter what settlement they come to, provided they have the ability to pay, and that means they can balance the budget. The minister, for the record, is nodding. Maybe he could just say that on the record for me.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The test is the ability to pay. If they have sufficient funds to meet compensation that has been provided, including those items like work practice, work rules — all of those things, all of the cost items that are built into a contract.... If they have a budget which balances at that point, then they would have the ability to pay and it would be filed with the commissioner and case over.

MR. CLARK: That's worthwhile for people to know. Of course, it always strikes me as interesting — if I might make this aside — that any public sector employer would agree to a contract that they can't afford to pay. It's really a non sequitur. It's not logical. If they're agreeing to something, they presumably have the ability to pay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: They're doing it.

MR. CLARK: The members on the opposite side are saying that they are doing it. That remains to be seen, Mr. Chairman.

I don't know why a hospital would agree to give a pay raise that they can't afford. Presumably they have to go back to the government to get more money. The government is in control of the purse strings, and the government can simply deal with it at that time. I don't know why we need legislation to ensure that public sector employers, including the provincial government, are acting prudently. That's just an aside, and it's a debate.

Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure I understand the work practices section, because this is new. Essentially it is every single thing agreed to in a collective agreement that costs money. That means that tool allowances or bereavement pay or maternity leave or class size or stress leave — just to name a few — would be costed out because they are effectively a cost to the employer, and all of those now are captured by this legislation. Is that correct? 

[3:00]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CLARK: What I'd like to ask the minister is whether the compensation commissioner has any jurisdiction to deal with how the money is allocated within that envelope, so to speak, or within that collective agreement. For example, if a school board agrees to reduce class size and give a 5 percent pay increase to teachers, would the compensation commissioner pass judgment? Would he say, "You don't have the ability to pay" or "We think it's too high for these reasons, " or give directions to increase the class size in order to pay for the salary increase? In other words, are those solely the purview of the negotiating parties? Would the commissioner not pass judgment on how the pie is allocated, so to speak, but do so simply on the totality of what is agreed to?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, the hon. member is correct. He would not pass judgment on how the pie was divided up. That would be left up to the collective bargaining process and other factors within the administration of the school district. The commissioner would simply review the plan as to the district's ability to pay, not the allocation of various line items.

MR. CLARK: Similarly, then, the questions about how a board goes about achieving a balanced budget, for example, and what programs are cut in order to pay for other decisions that have been agreed to between the parties, are really the purview of the board, provided the board has arrived at a balanced budget and therefore can pay for it. Is that really not the commissioner's purview, but that of the parties, to deal with?

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's certainly not within the commissioner's purview. It may be within the purview of other authorities, but certainly not that of the commissioner, as it pertains to this act. You can draw your own conclusions. We're discussing this particular act, and certainly what the school board did or how it cut up its budget would not fall within the commissioner's purview. But the Minister of Education may have something to say about it. I can't comment on that.

MR. CLARK. Unless my colleagues have other matters about these work practices clauses, I'd like to move to the question of retroactivity.

With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, and the minister's, I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that several clauses deal with retroactivity. Section 10(3)(a) is the first one. In addition, sections 19, 20 and 47 all deal with retroactivity.

I must tell the House that I have great concern about retroactive legislation, in particular because this legislation does not say what the guidelines say or what the minister has said or what the Premier has said. The Premier had indicated that the legislation was retroactive to the date of his televised speech, but the legislation says the guidelines may be made applicable as of a date earlier than the Premier's speech.

That kind of open-ended retroactivity is extraordinary. When you look at the legislation, section 19

[ Page 11847 ]

gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the right to make regulations pursuant to the act. Section 19(2)(d) states that it can make regulations retroactive prior to the commencement of the act, January 30, 1991. The guidelines, in addition to the regulations, can be made retroactive prior to January 30, 1991. And finally, under section 47(3)(c), the commissioner can make orders retroactive prior to January 30, 1991. Remember, the act is already retroactive to January 30, 1991, but other sections of the act allow the commissioner to move retroactively beyond the date of commencement of the act.

Retroactivity offends what is called the commonlaw rule of statutory interpretation. Essentially the act has the power to turn unlawful something which was lawful. There's a statutory rule of interpretation applied by the courts, known as the presumption against retroactivity. This legislation spells out that retroactivity in order to get around the hurdle of the courts, which would automatically have a presumption against retroactivity.

Here we have a general power of retroactivity granted to a public employee — the commissioner. He is able to decide through his own administrative discretion to whom the act shall apply. This is, I believe, an unprecedented power. I think it offends the common law, because it amounts to the rule by man rather than the rule by law. The law has open-ended retroactivity, which the commissioner is free to apply selectively. I'm not a lawyer, but my sense is that that unprecedented power won't stand up. I think it is extraordinary.

I would like to ask the minister why in this section 10(a), to begin with, it states that the guidelines may be made applicable on a date earlier than January 30, 1991, and furthermore that different dates can be established for different groups of public sector employees. Not only is it retroactive across the board, but it gives the commissioner the power to selectively apply retroactivity to different groups at different dates. It seems extraordinary and unprecedented power. I would appreciate it if the minister could explain the rationale.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's very straightforward. The reason the commissioner may pick a date other than midnight, January 29, 1991, is that many collective agreements were in the process of being negotiated at that particular time. Collective agreements do not all fall due on the same date, so the commissioner might set different dates. So the dates applicable to when those collective agreements fell due, were negotiated or finalized would be the dates, on either side of the case, that were chosen.

If there was agreement — and there are many agreements where the negotiations commenced prior to midnight on January 29, 1991 — and the negotiations were finalized after that date, then they would fall under the purview of the commissioner. Other than that, it would be any agreement which would take effect.... Any other agreement would take effect as it was negotiated or finalized after January 30, 1991. But the commissioner has no authority to go back beyond January 29, 1991, and set a date and say that this agreement needs adjustment. If it was finalized back then, prior to midnight on January 29, 1991, then it would not fall under the jurisdiction of this act. He would not be able to go back in time — only those agreements which were being negotiated and had not yet been finalized.

MR. CLARK: The minister's argument doesn't make sense. Let me explain it. This section of the bill says the guidelines may be made applicable as of a date earlier than January 30, 1991. To do what the minister suggested requires it to be retroactive to January 30, 1991. In other words, the minister said that only agreements signed after January 30, 1991, are captured by the act. If that's the intention, then why do you need legislation that says the guidelines may be applicable as of a date earlier than January 30, 1991?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Perhaps I can walk the hon. member step by step through the retroactivity portion of this act. Section 47 says that commencement will be deemed to take effect January 30, 1991.

The Premier's speech, January 29, 1991, announced the program with the clear intention that legislation would be introduced to effect the announcement. On January 30, 1991, the then Minister of Finance, by letter to chief executive officers of all public service employers in the province and by news release, gave notice that (1) the program would take effect after midnight, January 29, 1991; (2) all agreements reached after midnight, January 29, 1991, would require approval prior to implementation; (3) as at that date, senior executive salaries are frozen.

On March 9, 1991, chief executive officers were advised again by Mr. Ed Lien, commissioner — who, by the way, was appointed on February 7, 1991 — that (1) the program was to be effective after January 29, 1991; and (2) compensation plan increases entered into after midnight, January 29, 1991, would require approval prior to implementation.

Therefore an agreement reached before midnight, January 29, 1991 is not covered by the act or the guidelines for that agreement. But they will be covered at some time in the future when they're caught up in another round of bargaining in years to come. Where no agreement has been reached, or where an agreement has been reached after midnight, January 29, 1991, the act and the guidelines then apply.

The guidelines may have retroactive applicability in order to establish the base date and the year the guidelines will take effect. For the most part, the guidelines will take effect on the day a new compensation plan has been agreed to or has been agreed to be amended. Where no agreement has been reached, or where an agreement has been reached after midnight, January 29, 1991, the act and the guidelines apply. The guidelines may have retroactive applicability in order to establish the base date and the guideline year. The guidelines will take effect, for the

[ Page 11848 ]

most part, on the day It has been agreed to amend a new compensation plan.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, just so you are aware, we're discussing four or five clauses dealing with retroactivity at the same time, including the very last clause. I think it's germane.

The minister has made a good argument for the bill to be retroactive to January 30, but he has failed to make an argument that the bill requires retroactivity beyond January 30. The minister referred to section 47, which is of greatest concern to me, frankly. Section 47 says, first of all, that the act comes into force on January 30. Then subsection 47(3)(c) says:

"Where, under...an order of the commissioner under section 20(1), the guidelines, the compensation regulations or the order become applicable to public sector employees or groups of public sector employees on a date before January 30, 1991, this act, the guidelines and the compensation regulations are retroactive to that earlier date in relation to those employees...."

What that says very clearly is that the commissioner can retroactively, before January 30, declare a contract to be beyond the ability to pay. Therefore, this act will come into force prior to January 30, 1991. That's what's so offensive. It's giving the commissioner, a public employee, the power to retroactively go before the date of commencement of this act.

[3:15]

It's bad enough, Mr. Chairman — but I understand it — why we have an act that's retroactive. But this is unlimited retroactivity — qualified by the guidelines; I understand that. If it's the intention of the government to essentially freeze everything as of January 30 — not freeze everything, but make the bill come into force on January 30 — then I do not understand why it's necessary to have unlimited retroactivity before that date. The minister has not made an argument to that effect. He has simply made an argument to make it retroactive to January 29. Perhaps the minister could clear that up one more time.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The act itself is not retroactive, but it gives the power under the guidelines to capture public sector employers and employees who have not yet been able to reach an agreement prior to the date that the act became effective, which is midnight on January 29, 1991. If the agreement had not yet been concluded.... It's not unlimited retroactivity. It only applies to those public sector bargaining units that had not yet reached an agreement prior to the effective date of this act. If they have reached an agreement prior to that date, then they're not captured under this act.

MR. CLARK: If a public sector union has been negotiating for a year and a half and signs an agreement today which is retroactive for a year and a half, this bill allows for the government to review that contract — not in light of the date it's signed, but in light of the date it expired. Is that correct?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I would submit to the hon. member that if it's taken a year and a half to conclude a collective agreement, there's something more wrong than retroactivity. There's something very wrong with the two protagonists in the piece not being able to get together.

The simple and straightforward answer to your question is if it had taken.... I don't know which union you're referring to that has been out there bargaining for a year and a half; I don't think there is one. But in the event there was one, the answer is yes. If they hadn't reached an agreement until today, they would be captured under the provisions of this act and the guidelines.

MR. CLARK: In the hypothetical case — it's not a real case, but it's not uncommon for negotiations to go on at some length — is it the intention that the commission would review the year and a half previous? In other words, would it be the intention to reclaim your retroactive check or to sort of review it? Or would it be the intention to review the contract only with respect to that which is paid after January 30? Is it the purpose to not go back a year and a half in this hypothetical example, but simply to go back the two months to the date of commencement of this legislation — January 30, 1991?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The employer would have to file with the commissioner a plan that clearly showed the ability to pay what the two parties had agreed to in the contract. If that plan met the test of ability to pay, no further questions. The parties would go about their business and do whatever was agreed to within the collective agreement, and the commissioner would have no further need to talk to them at all.

MR. GABELMANN: Can I ask the question in a different way? If the settlement that is reached in March — this month — includes a retroactive period for last October, November and December and a pay increase in that period....? Or is it possible for this mechanism to capture some element of the increase that might otherwise have been paid to those employees in the last three months of 1990?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The plan would be submitted to the commissioner, and it could not be implemented until after it had been reviewed. The test then, as in other cases, would be the ability to pay all of the things and the elements that make up total compensation.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure the minister answered my question. If he did, I apologize for not hearing it.

If the commissioner makes a determination that he wants to reduce the settlement, can he reduce the settlement that might have been payable in the last three months of 1990?

[ Page 11849 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, the commissioner could only refer the matter back to the parties for resolution.

MR. GABELMANN. In referring back to the parties, does the commissioner make reference to that period? Or does he acknowledge that it is outside the scope of this legislation?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's my opinion that the commissioner would take into consideration what has happened during that time in the private sector and any other guidelines that it has been filed under. They would have to show an ability to pay. That's what this legislation is all about. The parties hereto — in this case the public sector employer — would have to point out where their ability to pay was, and if there was no ability to pay, how they intended to receive the funding to pay for this extra compensation of which you're speaking.

MR. GABELMANN. Mr. Chairman, the minister has taken a roundabout way to say yes to my question. Would the minister agree that in certain circumstances the retroactivity can date back to some months prior to January 29, 1991?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, where there was sufficient retroactivity — let's say there was a large amount — the plan would in all likelihood outline the retroactive portion of the agreement, and it would have to be reviewed by the commissioner. I can't tell you how the commissioner would rule on that, but certainly that would be an unusual situation that would occur in only one contract year, and there would be perhaps a few situations in this year only. If the plan included the retroactivity, it would be up to the commissioner to review to see whether he approved it. Each case would have to be dealt with separately. I don't believe he would have many cases of this kind to deal with.

MR. CLARK: I think we've got a yes from the minister.

Let me ask another question. If a collective agreement is signed today that is retroactive to a year ago, is the entire contract reviewed by the compensation commissioner or only that which is paid since the commencement of this act came into force on January 29, 1991?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, it would be the entire contract.

MR. GABELMANN: What happens to a contract that's signed today, that is effective from some date in 1989 or 1990 and that has been under negotiation for some time but expires on January 28, 1991? What happens to a contract in a situation — and this isn't common but it does occur — where people are in negotiations for a long time and where they continue to work without a contract because they haven't been able to agree to one? Their contract expired, say, the middle of 1990. They reach a contract now and sign the contract beginning on that mid-1990 date and expiring on January 28, 1991. The question is: is it covered?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The answer is yes, it's covered under this act.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

MR. CLARK: Section 13(3) concerns me a little bit. It says: "Information obtained by the mediator in the course of duty under this act is not open to inspection by any person, court or tribunal, and the mediator is not compellable by any court or tribunal to give evidence relative to that information." I'm curious as to why this provision is here. The normal course of events is for the fairness or the legality of the commissioner's rulings to be challenged in court. This renders it impossible to appeal a decision to the courts, which would be a normal test of any legislation. Perhaps the minister could explain whether that's the case.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The same clause applied in the previous Compensation Stabilization Act, and it ensured the confidentiality of the negotiations and information that the parties shared with each other.

I was checking with my adviser, and there have never been any problems that we're aware of with this particular clause. It was in the previous agreement, and it appears to be a reasonably standard practice.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

On section 14.

MR. CLARK: This is entitled "ability to pay, " and we won't go around that argument again. We appreciate that the minister has in the last little while been fairly clear on helping us define what that really is; namely, if they can pay it, then they have the ability to pay if they have a balanced budget.

I guess the only place where that doesn't hold true is in the provincial government itself, where the question would be how the provincial government itself defines the ability to pay. If you look at the definition here and elsewhere, it says that the ability to pay is defined by financial decisions made by the provincial government. So it seems to me that the provincial government could declare that we have the ability to pay 1½ percent or 2 percent, and that would be the definition that would fall. This opens up, in particular with the provincial government's case, an arbitrary definition of the ability to pay.

Maybe the minister could clear this up. Where there are boards like hospital boards, school boards and the like, the rule seems to be fairly clear coming from the minister and Crown corporations. But where it's the provincial government itself, those

[ Page 11850 ]

rules do not seem as clear but rather arbitrary in terms of the government's direction.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the provincial government sector, some very responsible negotiations have taken place over the past while. The ability to pay is clearly set out within the estimates, which will be tabled in this House later — the amount of money allotted within that process to each ministry and department of government. The ability to pay is clearly defined within the budgeting process.

The government could always increase its ability to pay on the short term by going out and borrowing a huge amount of money, or whatever, but more than likely, going out and borrowing.... Going from a $700 million to a $3 billion deficit would be one way of doing it, as they've done in Ontario. We don't intend to do that. We intend to stick within the budgetary process as we have done in the past, by and large. There are some exceptions, where you may have special needs for health or education or social services. Then you would perhaps exceed the guidelines by special warrants.

I think our ability to pay within government is clearly defined as the taxpayers' ability to pay us, and we're trying now to guesstimate what that will be for the '91-92 fiscal period. I think it will be clearly spelled out within the budget when it is brought down in the House.

[3:30]

MR. CLARK The ability to pay is an arbitrary measure in the sense that we have a finite cap on how much money there is, but there are questions about government abuse of aircraft, $50 million advertising budgets and on and on in terms of the waste of money from this administration. All of that means that there's a question of priorities. Clearly, within a $15 billion budget, how much the government chooses with their employees to agree to pay is clearly a matter of negotiation.

We don't need legislation. If this administration were tough and fair negotiators, they could arrive at something mutually agreeable — they have in the past and could in the future. And this section, when it comes to the provincial government as opposed to boards and commissions and the like, is clearly open to interpretation and, I think, open to the arbitrary abuse by this administration.

I want to advise you....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, for a moment, Mr. Member. I've had difficulty in ascertaining the relevancy of your comments with the number of conversations that have gone on over in the corner here. Possibly other members would remain silent and let the recognized member have a say.

MR. CLARK: To assist you, Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to move to section 19.

Section 14 approved unanimously on a division.

Sections 15 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

MS, A. HAGEN: This is a section of the bill that deals with regulations. Up until now we have been talking about guidelines which are set by cabinet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for New Westminster has been recognized. If other members would please remain silent so we might hear her words of wisdom.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I know it takes a minute after a division for us to get settled down to concentrate on this fascinating bill we are debating today.

These regulations are, to put it mildly, very prescriptive. They suggest that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — which means the cabinet — can make very definite rules about limitations on increases in compensation. They can require reductions in compensation or prohibit any increase in compensation. They can prohibit or restrict the inclusion of certain perquisites — that means working conditions or working rules — in a compensation plan.

A few minutes ago I raised the question with the minister about parties in good faith negotiating an agreement for their wages and benefits, and public sector employers - school boards, hospital boards, various groups - setting budgets that determined that they were in a position to pay the wages and benefits that had been agreed to between the employer and the employee.

As I read this section, I come to the conclusion that, notwithstanding the assurances of the minister that the parties can negotiate and determine their ability to pay within the laws of the land and the budgets that are laid down by the province, the cabinet has the authority to prescribe in regulation a whole series of rules that would be — in my reading of this particular section — specific and prescriptive. They could set percentage increases. They could set reductions. They could deal with matters like overtime or health and safety conditions or class sizes in various agreements and say whether they could or could not exist and how they might exist.

Could the minister please explain the apparent inconsistency from what he described to us as we looked at section 10 under the guidelines and the very prescriptive nature of this section, which it appears allows the cabinet not only to determine some abstract ability to pay but in fact to prescribe all aspects of the wages and benefits that people may receive if they are public sector employees?

HON. MR. VEITCH: A completely unrelated note for just a moment, If I may. I'm given to understand that the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) has announced his intention that he will not be running in the next election. I have been in this House with him for quite some time. He has served for a long while, except during that period when he

[ Page 11851 ]

stepped aside to allow Dave Barrett to take his place as the Leader of the Opposition after having been defeated in the House. We wish him well, on behalf of the government. I wish him well in whatever his future endeavours are. On a very much lighter note, I hope his future ambitions do not include crossing the floor. Anything aside from that, I wish him well.

Getting back to the regulations, it's true that the regulations under the old guidelines were more pervasive than they would normally be under a certain bill or certain sets of legislation. But under the Compensation Stabilization Act, which worked so well, the forerunner to this particular act, there was not one single public sector group that had to settle under the regulations. They all settled under the guidelines. You have draft copies of those guidelines.

[3:45]

At this point in time there are no regulations, because the act has not yet been passed. It is our intention to table the regulations, together with the finalized guidelines, when the act is proclaimed.

MR. CLARK: I'd like to draw the minister's attention to section 19(2)(j), which allows the commissioner to determine the percentage of a productivity increase achieved by a group of public sector employees and the percentage of that productivity increase which may be taken into account when reaching or establishing a compensation plan. I'm curious as to how the minister sees the commissioner determining the productivity increase and how much of it can be attributed to the wage increase.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The commissioner won't determine what economic factors bear upon the productivity increase. Indeed, in the case of a unionized entity, the union and the public sector employer would file the compensation plan and say: "Mr. Commissioner, here is a productivity increase. It is worth this much in costs and dollars." The commissioner would use whatever yardsticks or measurements might be at his disposal to determine whether that was indeed a fact. If the commissioner was satisfied, he would accept it as a productivity increase, and there would be no further action in that area.

MR. CLARK: That was subsection (i) — I'm sorry.

I'd also like to draw the minister's attention to subsection (j), which prohibits reclassification in certain circumstances. It seems to me, as we talked about earlier — and I won't go into it again — that the question of pay equity is a good illustration, because it very often involves reclassification. It states here that it prohibits a public sector employer from implementing any reclassification if it results in, or appears to result in, increased compensation. I wonder if the minister could give some explanation of the purpose of this section.

HON. MR. VEITCH: This act purposely sends out this message; we don't want to have reclassification used as a disguise to increase wages unfairly. That's precisely why that is included in this section of the act. It's all tied to ability to pay. If we did not have these limitations in here, then a public employer could reclassify employees and put them into a higher salary bracket which was probably not commensurate with the kind of work they were carrying out. That's the reason for including that in this act.

MR. CLARK: The public employer would make a reclassification, say, for the purpose of implementing a pay equity agreement. They would make an argument with the commissioner, and the commissioner would determine whether it was a reclassification that was justified. Say, for example, it wasn't pay equity, but that there was a wholesale reclassification for a variety of other reasons. The public employer and the union go and say, "These are reasonable reclassifications for the following reasons, " and that would potentially be allowed under the legislation. Is that correct?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, that may very well be acceptable. The two parties — there are always two parties to any agreement — would meet with the concessioner and argue that the reclassification was indeed correct. If they could convince the commissioner that the reclassification was something that was required, then it would be accepted.

Sections 19 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

MR. CLARK: I'm a bit concerned about this. It essentially says that they have two weeks to comply with directives of the commissioner. If the commissioner directs two parties to renegotiate, it seems that two weeks may well, given negotiations — the Premier knows that negotiations can take some time — be potentially limiting in terms of two parties renegotiating an agreement to comply with the legislation.

HON. MR. VEITCH: You have to set a time-frame, hon. member. One has to set a time-frame, and the shorter the time-frame the better. The commissioner has the ability to extend the period, and I'm sure that would be done in cases where it was required.

Sections 23 to 25 inclusive approved.

On section 26.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, we can deal with part 4 of the act — sections 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 — as one. I want the minister to explain, if he could, part 4 of the bill, because it deals with public sector senior managers' compensation as opposed to collective agreements. First maybe I could ask him to explain these five clauses.

[ Page 11852 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, to the second member for Vancouver East, we'll walk you through this one again as well.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Firstly, In the Premier's speech of January 29, 1991, senior managers' compensation was frozen. This freeze applies to cabinet ministers, Members of the Legislative Assembly and senior public officials. It's only fair that our senior public sector managers are directly impacted by the public's ability to pay.

Of course, these officials are at higher income levels in various public sector organizations. A Deputy Minister of Health, by the way, may quite often receive only half what a senior hospital administrator would receive by way of remuneration.

Before any adjustment to a senior manager's salary is approved, I intend to: (1) establish a list of who should properly be considered in senior management — small organizations with an executive director paid $30,000 may be senior to that organization, but that's not the group we intend to address; (2) secure information on compensation, duties and terms of conditions of employment for the senior managers in question; (3) make recommendations on policies to employers respecting a system of classification that will introduce fairness in compensation; and (4) consult with the commissioner and others as required.

We have identified apparent inequities in compensation for senior managers between various public sector employers. I gave you an example of that a while ago. Some senior managers with broad responsibilities appear to be paid less than other senior managers with very narrow responsibilities. We see salary ranges vary for senior officials from $60,000 to $250,000. They are all over the map, depending on whether it's a school board administrator, a Deputy Minister of Education, a Deputy Minister of Health or the president of a hospital.

The opposition will appreciate that the government does not directly control all of the 700-plus employers and the compensation level they provide to senior staff. It would be impossible for the government to control that.

With this act, we plan to influence them to ensure a fair system of classification, and compensation is introduced all the way across the public sector. This has been a long time in coming, I think you will agree.

MR. CLARK: Will the list of senior managers be public information?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The answer is absolutely yes.

MR. CLARK: Will the list contain their title and their total remuneration as required under this section?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, the salaries are already obliged to be disclosed under other pieces of legislation. I don't see why they ought not to be covered in one compendium.

MR. CLARK: Does the minister have a handle on how big that list will be or how many will be on it? Subsequent to that, if there are amendments to it as we contemplate in this act, will they become public in a routine fashion?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, we still have to determine how many individuals can correctly be called senior managers. I mentioned some of the reasons for them in walking you through the steps here. We will get that information back, and we will list those individuals. We'll list them by category, and we will list their remuneration.

Sections 26 to 32 inclusive approved.

On section 33.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I am again concerned about giving no right to appeal decisions. This says, "but no appeal may be taken from that order," meaning any order of the commissioner. It seems to me that there is a basic common-law rule that the right to appeal the fairness of decisions by the government should be a normal course of events. It seems to me that to remove that right is extraordinary power, again, which I would think is not necessary. Perhaps the minister could explain why no appeal may be taken to the B.C. Supreme Court of an order under this section.

HON. MR. VEITCH: This was covered as well. This was the particular section in the Compensation Stabilization Act that worked so well over the years to stabilize the compensation paid to government employees. It helped pave the way for the good government and good fiscal management we have in this province today. I see no reasons why, If this provision caused no problem in the old act, it would cause any problems in this particular act.

Sections 33 to 40 inclusive approved.

On section 41.

MR. CLARK: This section contemplates some agreement with the federal government, so perhaps the minister could explain whether such an agreement is contemplated, and if so, in what form.

[4:00]

HON. MR. VEITCH: It was another provision included in the Compensation Stabilization Act. There may be some agreements affecting this particular section, but there is none contemplated at the present time.

MR. CLARK: I might say, Mr. Chairman — and I'm not a lawyer — that it's clearly a contravention. It's not allowed for the government of British Columbia

[ Page 11853 ]

to enter into an agreement with the federal government that would put federal civil servants — public employees — under provincial legislation. My recollection is that the Anti-Inflation Board's rather famous court case regarding the jurisdiction of different levels of government revolved around this very point. In other words, the federal government cannot exceed their jurisdiction voluntarily without an act of Parliament. No agreement would be allowed. It's very clear by precedent. What would be allowed would be companion federal legislation that gave to our compensation commissioner the authority over federal employees. But no agreement can be reached without companion federal legislation.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wish to goodness that the federal government would muster up the courage to introduce this kind of legislation. We wouldn't be in the sorry mess we're in today. What we have to do in this country is not to introduce more taxes— the GST and all these other things. It's to cut the size and scope of government and get government down to the size that 27 million people can afford in this country. That's the only way we're going to solve our financial problems.

I thank you for your cautionary note, and if and when we enter any negotiations with the federal government, it will be taken into consideration.

Sections 41 to 45 inclusive approved.

On section 46.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, the minister knows that the rhetoric on my part has been very muted today — unlike the minister's taking every chance to get up and make a speech.

However, I can't resist on the last section of this bill, which repeals the Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act, making a comment on the passing of that legislation. It's a sad day when legislation is debated at length in this House and the government comments that this a sunshine bill, a new day for public sector bargaining, and then just a few months later, brings in legislation that repeals it.

I was quoted at the time as saying It was a "wacko bill." It clearly was a stupid piece of legislation that had no chance of success. It ate up hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money for Admiral Yanow and his group to file all these collective agreements and to put in the newspaper those silly ads— with the tiny little print — that no one read. They never worked. Of course, we're happy to see the government has acknowledged that the legislation didn't work. It was stupid legislation, and now it's being abolished. I can't help but comment that we on this side of the House told you so.

On a serious note, Mr. Chairman, the minister is quoted as saying that the reason they've repealed this bill is that it didn't work. He said that public sector wage increases were still rising. When the government introduced this legislation in July of last year, it said the reason for doing so was for freedom of information — for sunshine legislation. That's what they called it. They said they just wanted to give more information to the public. Now this minister— the successor to that minister — says that this wasn't the real intention of the bill. It wasn't sunshine legislation, or public information or a service to the public by advertising the demands of unions and public sector employers. The real purpose was to drive down wages for public sector employees. That's what he said. You said it didn't work. It didn't accomplish the stated intent.

I might say that the other real reason for the bill at the time was to incite labour unrest to take the public's attention off all that scandal and all those problems they had that the press was consumed by. They wanted to get that off the agenda, get on to the labour relations turf and get some kind of public sector labour dispute happening. That was the real agenda. It's true, but it didn't work.

Of course, what happened today is that they have brought in another piece of legislation designed to provoke a confrontation. At the same time, they repealed that silly legislation which had no chance of success in the past. It was fully debated. Everybody said that at the time, but the government pressed ahead. Now they recognize that they have wasted thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money on a stupid piece of legislation. We're thankful that they've come to their senses and eliminated it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM. I don't think it's ever a mistake to provide information to the public. The disclosure act certainly provided that opportunity. I'm sure that a lot of people throughout the province became far more familiar with the process, with some of the demands by those in the public rector and what was being offered by others in the public sector. I believe the legislation served a very useful purpose.

I'm sure that there were some who had higher expectations and might have assumed that somehow this would have resulted in other settlements. But who's to say what or where the impact might have been? Furthermore, I reiterate that it's very valuable for the public to have this information made available to them

The second member for Vancouver East said that the media tends to be too much consumed with other issues — it's one place where he and I certainly agree — and doesn't provide sufficient attention to some of the things that have been accomplished by us as government, oftentimes with direction and help from the opposition, which is welcome and good.

I think this information served the public well. Who's to say whether it in fact provided all that we had initially hoped? Whether, in retrospect, something else might possibly have been done, I can't tell either. But let me say that when legislation to serve the people, such as we see today, replaces that which we had, there's no point in leaving a whole lot of legislation on the books if it's not necessary. If you have a piece of legislation which serves the purpose more effectively and does more than the initial legislation did, the thing to do is eliminate such

[ Page 11854 ]

legislation so that we don't have a confusion of legislation out there for the people, because that doesn't serve the populace well. If you have so much legislation or regulation, much of which is not needed or necessary at the time, that adds confusion and doesn't serve the populace too well, either.

I support this section. I think we have fine legislation to proceed with. Therefore the legislation which was previously passed is no longer required.

Sections 46 and 47 approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 82, Compensation Fairness Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 32

NAYS - 17

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 81.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
APPROVAL ACT
(continued)

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I had thought when we adjourned the debate last time that the former Minister of Finance wasn't going to continue on with what most of us reluctantly had to acknowledge was a rather intemperate outburst. You recall, too, that the Premier was also joining the fray at that time. I think he surprised us all, because we on our side of the House had made it very clear that we would be supporting this measure, albeit with some reservations and reluctance.

The case against this particular measure is essentially a matter of saying that the government could have done better than it did. In my few minutes of speaking to this bill, I simply want to offer some cautions to government and to suggest why we consciously and deliberately conclude that this bill does not go far enough.

[4:15]

Our basic contention in speaking to this measure is that if we want to involve the people in the constitution-making process in this country, then we must provide the people with more than an opportunity to simply say yes or no to a question that has been formulated behind closed doors by a select small group of people. Participation in a constitution — making process must be more than simply voting yes or no. We have had enough experience in this country with constitution-making behind closed doors by small groups of people who are apparently not answerable to anybody for the decisions they make, for the language they choose to use or for the kinds of questions that are brought forward for our consideration. We on this side of the House believe we can do considerably better than that. We advocate some kind of significant and meaningful consultative process.

I want to turn very briefly to precisely what this measure before us conveys and contains. Despite the fact that we have had some — dare I say — almost acrimonious debate on the measure, it's really very simple. It consists of about four whereas clauses followed by a single resolution. If I might, I'd like to read that into the record simply because some time has intervened between the last debate and this one. It says simply as follows:

"Whereas Canadians are involved in reassessing the Constitution of Canada; and whereas the Constitution of Canada is the Supreme Law of Canada...and whereas it is essential that the Constitution of Canada reflect the values of British Columbians and that British Columbians have an opportunity to indicate their views on any proposed constitutional amendment; therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as follows:

"1. The government" — and this is clearly the meat of the resolution, Mr. Speaker — "shall not introduce a motion for a resolution of the Legislative Assembly authorizing an amendment to the Constitution of Canada unless a referendum has first been conducted under the Referendum Act with respect to the subject matter of the resolution."

That's the end of the motion. It's very straightforward, and those who are watching these proceedings and some members of the House can legitimately ask what the concern is. Is there anything wrong with having a referendum? Is there anything wrong with giving people an opportunity to participate? The answer to that is resoundingly no, there is nothing wrong with that. The issue, however, is whether it goes far enough. We on this side contend — and it

[ Page 11855 ]

has already been said by my colleagues — that what happens in a referendum and the question of a referendum should be the end of a longer process, not the beginning of a process.

I would draw everyone's attention to what this particular means of casting a vote is based on, namely, the Referendum Act passed in the last session of the Legislature. The difficulty with that measure is that it provides no means whatsoever for the people of the province to have any say in or discussion of what the referendum question might be. The referendum question will be decided by the cabinet, and cabinet, as we know, by definition, is secret. It meets behind closed doors. The only information we will get prior to the actual ballot will be whatever the cabinet chooses to issue. We on this side are arguing that if we believe in some kind of consultative process worthy of that name, then we ought to open up the process. We ought to do something other than specifically exclude consultation, which is what this measure does insofar as it rests on the Referendum Act of last year.

That's the essential issue. We're arguing that what ought to happen in this fundamentally important decision for our country is that we should open the process rather than close it further than it is. We have advocated that a legislative committee ought to be empowered to go and talk with people and entertain their opinions and views. If we believe in a meaningful, participatory democracy, it seems we can do nothing less.

I speak to this issue of the Canadian constitution with some passion and concern, because I desperately fear that our current crises will not be addressed by this measure, a measure that, as I say, seems to exclude the people from consultation on the constitution that directly affects all of them. If ever there were a time to talk to the people, that time is now.

We are facing what most experts now refer to as a constitutional crisis in this country. What many people have suggested is the likely breakup of Canada as we know it. This is not the time to introduce measures that will merely add to that sense of cynicism, that sense of politicians no longer listening to what people want but rather giving people only what they, the politicians, have already determined the people should have.

I was reading earlier today — during another debate which, frankly, wasn't capturing my imagination — a recent address by Angus Reid, president and chief executive officer of the Angus Reid polling group. The title of his paper is "Canada at the Crossroads — Public Opinion and the National Unity Debate." Appropriately enough, Dr. Reid put this in a context that I think is worth sharing with this chamber. He said that there was a terrible irony in the fact that we are now facing a constitutional crisis insofar as in 1987 — only three or four short years ago, depending on how you count, but only a very short time ago — Canada was sitting in a kind of ebullient condition. Everybody was feeling reasonably optimistic about where we might go. In less than four years, we are now, sadly, confronting the possibility of the breakup of this country. Angus Reid notes that some 80 percent of Canadians now believe that the country is in danger of splitting up. Only 20 percent of the population believed that last June.

I'd like to quote another little piece of the Angus Reid statement, if I may. The other conclusion he draws is that we're in a position of "Canadians sitting on an emotional powder-keg" — his words. We're bickering with one another; we're fighting with one another. We don't trust one another; we don't trust our politicians, sadly. It seems to me that that is compelling evidence to suggest that the referendum question, the approach to consultation in this particular measure, is demonstrably inadequate.

I won't belabour the point. As I say, we're going to support the measure. Better this referendum than nothing at all. But I would like to implore the government in as passionate and sincere a way as I possibly can to open up and air out the process. Don't confront British Columbians with a simple yes-or-no question that they have not had an opportunity to discuss the validity of. The nature of the question is itself fundamental. Our constitution and the future of our country, it seems to me, are much too important to be decided by a simplistic yes-or-no question. I would urge the government to give considerable thought to how that question might be formulated and to ways that we can involve the people of this province in its formulation.

MR. BRUCE: I would like to take part in this debate in an effort to speak for Canada. I appreciate that we're talking about a referendum that will be held in British Columbia, but I think that today, more than at any other time in the history of this country, there's a need for all of us — particularly those who are elected in the legislatures across this land — to speak in favour of this nation as a nation, with all its parts, with all its pieces, with all the provinces, with all the territories. Canada is a nation of nations. I believe it's probably the greatest experiment in the world of bringing people together to live in one common country.

We're different from those within the United States, the country to the south of us. We're different because we have learned to appreciate one another for who we are and what we are. We don't require of people when they come to this country that they adopt other customs and cultures or be thrown into that great, blended melting-pot. They're allowed to live their life as they have come from their countries in other parts of the world and still be Canadian.

I would agree with the member for Nanaimo that today, more than ever before, it's important that Canadians and British Columbians understand what is at stake. I think it's important for us to show leadership within this House. This country will not remain a country unless we stand and speak in favour of Canada first.

I've had the wonderful experience of travelling much of this world, of spending long periods of time in countries in the Third World. I've seen the poverty; I've seen the deprivation. I've been in other parts of

[ Page 11856 ]

the world, in the eastern part of Europe, where I've seen the pollution and I've seen the despair on the some of those people's faces in their quest and search for a free and democratic country.

We have all of what is good that can be found in the world in this country of Canada. We have the fresh air; we have the fresh water; we have the land; and we have the ability to grow the food to feed our people. Now is not a time to break this country apart. But if one listens to the sentiments that are being expressed across this country, you would think that we were at the edge, that tomorrow Canada will start to break apart.

[4:30]

If Canada starts on that road, it will not simply be the question of whether Quebec will remain in Confederation. I believe we will then start to see others in other parts of this country start seriously talking of breaking away.

I often hear from other people in this province — indeed, a few — who talk about the French-English question and say: "Well, if the people of Quebec wish to go, let them go." But you have to know that there are many people in Quebec who today do not wish to separate from the country of Canada.

I thought of what it would be like if the question were reversed and it was British Columbia, and I, with my fervent belief in this country, perhaps a minority in the province of the day, was feeling that the rest of the people of this province were about to take the road of separating from the country of Canada, and that many in the rest of Canada were saying: "If they want to go, let them go." Who would I turn to to work with to keep this country together? I think it's important that we in this House send the message loud and clear to the many — and truly, there are many in the province of Quebec — that we wish this country to stay together as a united country, as one country, as a country that represents many nationalities, many cultures and many customs.

Perhaps if we had a vehicle such as this prior to Meech Lake, there may have been a different end to the results of Meech Lake. All too often, we have left the decision-making process to those who are in power. Today, more than ever before, the people of Canada and the people of British Columbia are wishing a prominent and important role in the determination of the affairs of this country.

This is one small way of allowing that to occur. I too would caution that a simple black-and-white answer on a question that hasn't been well explained or developed could give us the wrong answer. It is important that if we undertake as a House to approve this act, that we also undertake to make sure that the citizens of this province understand what is at stake and what the question really is.

The question is to keep this country together. The question is to allow greater participation within the House, within the legislatures of this country. There are other ways of effecting that change. As one who has travelled this province and spoken to people and found the need and desire for their participation, I think it's time that this House and other legislatures — and, indeed, the House of Commons — started reviewing the rules and the manners and the customs of how we go about doing the people's business. I think it's time for a restoration of the historic rights of private members, and I think that is one step that can lead to a feeling of involvement by the people of the province and indeed the people of the country in the determination of the affairs of their country.

All of us, regardless of party — whether in this province, in the other provinces, in the Territories or in the federal government — have to acknowledge that people today wish to participate in the affairs of their country. They want to be part of the process, and they want to know that the people they elect to go either to Ottawa or to their provincial capital will carry their message, reflect upon their concerns and, in the final analysis, do what is right on behalf of their views.

I'm proud to be a British Columbian, but my country is Canada, and Canada as a nation needs our support now. Perhaps through this one small initiative — a referendum properly developed and properly explained to the people of British Columbia — we're on the road to involving the people of this province and to sending a message to others across this country, in particular the people of Quebec, that this country must remain one, and must not start down a road to separation. I think it's important that this House send that message loud and clear to the people of Quebec and to the nation as a whole: Canada is worth fighting for.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Speaker, before I speak to this bill I'd like leave to make an introduction,

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today with my wife Judy is my nephew Logan Billings and his friend Chris Hand. They're here from Robb Road School in Comox. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker, in the debate I've heard on this legislation, the members opposite assume that somehow this bill precludes any debate that might go on and any public consultation that might occur before a referendum were put. Obviously, as you look at the bill, there's nothing that would indicate any constraint on public consultation or debate. It's not the intention of this government to just create a question — a yes-or-no question — and put it to referendum, without there being all kinds of public debate.

We know from the Meech Lake experience that we have to have broad public discussion and consultation before we put issues regarding constitutional change either to this Legislature or to the people. This government has a record of public consultation that is second to none. During the past four years we've consulted broadly with the public on the environment, and we've done broad public consultation on the economy and on education, through the

[ Page 11857 ]

Sullivan commission, through health care studies and through Native Affairs.

This province has consulted with the people of British Columbia more regularly, more thoroughly and more completely on more issues than any government I'm aware of. So to suggest that introducing a bill that provides for referenda somehow takes away from public debate is nonsense, and I think the members know better than that.

The members opposite support this legislation, and rightfully so. They criticize, but for once they fail to provide an alternative. Those folks across the way have been regular about jumping up and making amendments to legislation, but what I hear today is vague criticism: "It's not enough. It doesn't go far enough." But they don't propose any amendments; they don't suggest to us how it could be done more completely. I think there's a good reason for that, because it's very difficult to put into legislation how you should consult with people on issues. I think it's a straw man that's being raised here.

Both sides of this House agree that there should be referenda, and I think both agree that there should be public consultation. I say to you that the record of this government in itself is proof enough of our intention to continue public consultation.

As a result of Meech Lake, we know and most Canadians know that the next time we set out to amend our constitution it must be done in a more thorough, more thoughtful way. This legislation is something that will assist us in ensuring that the next time around, it's done in a more thorough and more thoughtful way. It won't guarantee that it will be done. It will be the government of the day that decides the process that will ensure that the people are properly consulted and properly heard before the question is put to referendum.

I think this legislation is an important step in the right direction, and I fully intend to support it when the time comes.

MR. ROSE: I probably shouldn't get involved in a debate with the hon. Minister of Native Affairs, but he suggested that we had made no suggestions on how we might proceed on this. I'd like to remind the member, if he was out of the House, that we suggested that we broaden this and have an all-party parliamentary committee go around and hold some hearings so this Legislature would be in a better position to determine the nature of what the question might be, how comprehensive it might be and a number of other matters associated with it. It was called by our hon. Premier here, our legislative committee proposal on the constitution, an "NDP boondoggle." That's what happened to our last suggestion.

I'd just like to read from the Province about something going on in Alberta. I'm quoting the Canadian Press from Edmonton: "In the throne speech yesterday opening a new session of the Legislature, Premier Don Getty said the government would ask the people for their opinions on the province's place in Confederation. A legislative committee will hold public hearings this spring." That's another NDP boondoggle from that great NDP left-winger Don Getty. So much for that.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: It doesn't matter what happens in Ontario. It will never equal the record of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to engage in partisan banter or to trivialize this very important question. Although it may not be a grabber as far the public is concerned, someone over here said in a very good speech earlier that this whole question was just emotionally laden, and it is. It's emotionally laden and a very dangerous thing, potentially, if we don't do it right this time. What we're really talking about here is the survival of Canada as a country. That's really what it's coming down to. Whether or not it's subcutaneous — just under the skin of everybody — it's potentially a very explosive mixture if we deal with it and an even more explosive one if we don't.

What kind of Canada do we want, and how do we get it? How do we go about developing the kind of Canada we want? It's a tough question. For some of us who have always known Canada as it is, it looks pretty good. Given a choice, I think all of us would prefer to be Canadians rather than any other nationality. To millions of people throughout this world pounding on our doors, Canada looks very good to them too. It's funny that it doesn't look good to us.

Obviously there are terrible and serious regional tensions. Somehow we've got to address those questions, and I don't know how we're going to do it. The task of building a constitution, we say now, is too tough to leave to the experts, so we'd better let the people decide. I'm not sure that there is a consensus throughout Canada on what the new Canada should be like. But it makes sense, as this bill suggests, at least to start there. Give them a chance to say something. Because we all made the mistake of Meech. The Premier was loyal to it right to the end. I congratulate him for that, although some of my colleagues wouldn't. I voted for it. Sometimes, in retrospect, in comparison, it looks pretty good to what we're faced with right now.

[4:45]

We don't know what we're really faced with right now. All we hear are the rumblings, the sounds, all the noise and sabre-rattling as people try to establish positions for themselves. The government of Quebec and its opposition have one set of priorities. Preston Manning and whatever his party is called have another set.

One thing I really get angry about, though, is Preston Manning running around the country saying that he speaks for western Canada. He speaks for a few people in western Canada. Preston Manning doesn't speak for me. I'm getting a little tired of the kind of attention he's getting. Basically he's running around in a veil, and he hasn't got anything very new to tell anybody else about anything. He's just preying on the anger or resentment among certain groups in

[ Page 11858 ]

certain parts of the country. It's not that we don't need to change things; I don't think we can carry on without changing things. The Premier and his government changed things when they tried regionalization. He tried to appeal to the disparate ambitions of the various regions to be recognized, to be part of the centre. It's abandoned, because it was unworkable — that kind of devolution. It must have been, because it's no longer with us. We tried it and it failed.

They just had a vote yesterday in the Soviet Union, where they asked, the various regions and states that make up that federation what they think, because there's a tremendous amount of feeling in the Soviet Union for independence of the various states. So in one sense there's a pull to the centre of the nation-state, and then there's the power of separate identity and devolution in the various parts of that federation. It can blow apart. It hasn't yet, but it could blow apart.

Devolution, or returning power to the various areas and segments of our society, has to have its limits too. The Premier said: "Whatever Quebec gets, I want." That's fine in one sense, but if Quebec wants and gets the power it's asking for in the Allaire report, and B.C. follows suit, we don't have a nation anymore. We have another Yugoslavia, with six or seven states and a couple of territories. The states that make up the union— Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, etc. — even have their own external affairs ministers. What's happening in Yugoslavia? Gone is the strongman, and the place is about to blow apart.

There are tremendously volatile forces at loose in the world. When you think about that compared to what we have in this country, our differences — even the political ones — seem pretty petty by comparison. Like the member for Cowichan-Malahat, I have been lucky enough to have been all over the world too. I get off the plane and I kiss the ground; I'm so happy that I belong to Canada. What is important to me is to make certain that we continue to exist as a nation.

There has to be some strength at the centre. Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: if you have no strength at the centre, you have a collection of balkanized regions in the country, and ultimately each of them will be picked off for one reason or another. Maybe we need some changes. Maybe we don't need ten or 11 provinces and territories. Maybe it doesn't make much sense to have the Maritimes — four little administrations, with all that.... I was going to say duplication, but it's quadruplication.

Maybe it doesn't make sense. Maybe we need to avoid the duplication of some powers that are now held by the federal government, that were established a 150 years ago and that probably don't have the same relevance today. Education wasn't very important. It was privately established when we became a confederation. It wasn't very important; maybe it is important now. Maybe that would be a power that could be transferred federally. I don't think there's a chance that it'll happen. But there are other examples, and I'm not suggesting it should happen.

Maybe we have too many jurisdictions, rather than too few. Maybe we have too many repetitions and duplications of various kinds of powers. I don't think we're necessarily overgoverned. We may be overadministered, but I don't think we're necessarily overgoverned. In my view, people aren't interested in politics, or they're cynical about it. It's not because we have too much government, but they have too little say in it. Many of them feel: "Why bother to vote? It won't make any difference to my life anyway." That's a terrible thing for a politician to say, but somebody who studies these matters said recently that the kind of cabinet government we have at the federal and provincial levels, virtually making the backbenchers on the government side voting machines — spear-carriers — and giving too little public say.... In effect we elect an oligarchy, and the only accountability is maybe once every four years — in this case, five.

If we're going to have referenda, maybe we should have initiatives and recall. If we want to take the American presidential system, why only take part of it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Four-year elections.

MR. ROSE: I was going to talk about fixed elections, but I don't want to discuss that.

Mr. Speaker, it's not unusual for referenda to be held on constitutions — not at all. It's done In many countries. Different countries have established different ways to consult people. There are many ways. You know, the Americans had a constitutional conference. France has had four or five constitutions since the fourth republic. So it's done in different ways by different countries.

The fact that you have a wonderful constitution doesn't, in itself, make a wonderful nation. You can look at some of the South American constitutions. They're absolute artistic triumphs in terms of drafting, but they don't necessarily provide the freedom and opportunities guaranteed under our British common law, for instance. I was around when we did the Charter of Rights in 1982. We did it by a Senate-Commons committee. Why did we do it that way? We did it that way because there was no possible way to get 100 percent unanimity among the Premiers. It was tried and tried, and there was no way. Finally, Trudeau — whatever we might think of him — said: "I'm going to do it all on my own. If the Premiers won't agree, I'm going to patriate it myself or with the help of the House of Commons."

We sent it down to the Supreme Court, which said: "Legally you can do it, but the consensus and our tradition have always been that we have to consult the provinces, because they are an integral part of Confederation." It nearly faltered then after all the problems. I went through it all. It was a lengthy process there; it certainly wasn't through by unanimous consent.

It nearly foundered at the end, except that three guys got together in a kitchen and worked out the notwithstanding clause, which meant freedom not to follow the Charter. If you said "notwithstanding anything it says in the Charter," you could proceed

[ Page 11859 ]

with any reasonable law you wished. Quebec didn't sign it but was one of the first to use the notwithstanding clause on the language legislation. Out of it — and this is going to have implications for us in the future — the aboriginal people were guaranteed existing rights. There was no definition of what those existing rights were, but it's going to take two or three more jumps through various levels of courts to determine those.

Women got equality before the law for the first time. As a matter of fact, we used to joke that we had four parties in the House at that time: the Conservatives, the Liberals, the New Democrats and the women. They got together from all parties to guarantee that constitutionally they would have equality before the law. It was a very excellent showing and a very strong representation. Some people might even call it a gang-up, but, anyway, it worked.

Meech was a failure. The one before it didn't apply to Quebec, and now we're on the threshold of another, mainly because of the prominence given to the separatist independence movement in Quebec. I don't think we'd be faced with this question so profoundly if it weren't for that. All of us are very concerned, in this House anyway, about the fact that Quebec might go.

We believe in self-determination. We're not going to send in the troops to keep them there. We're not going to have another Abe Lincoln American Civil War over this matter, but if they go, as Tom Berger says: "They should know that self-determination is fine, but if they want to be independent, that's for them to decide." As Premier Bourassa said in a recent speech: "Whatever happens, Canada and Quebec must have a common currency, a central bank and customs union, and a common parliament." Mr. Parizeau disagrees. He rejects a common parliament, but he says that an independent Quebec will continue to use the Canadian dollar as its currency, and that there must be a joint central bank and customs union.

They want it both ways. I don't think the rest of Canada would accept that. I'm not arguing about whether they should or should not. I am saying that I don't think they will, because they can't have it both ways.

I certainly would resent it if additional powers were given to Quebec that were different from the rest of the country, while accepting and seating Bloc Québecois members in the federal parliament to collect their pensions and get all the rights of everybody else. That's patently unfair. As a matter of fact, because of the oath of allegiance, I don't think they should be there now doing what they are attempting to do to form a party. I'm very unhappy about that.

I want to close by saying that this isn't something we entered into lightheartedly or whimsically. This is a very serious matter. How we handle it has to be, for once, with the utmost of sensitivity. When it's all done, our institutions may change. There may be some devolution away from the centre, and there may be some movement toward the centre in certain constitutional areas. I'm not a constitutional expert, but I've suffered through one and perhaps two attempts to change constitutions, and I know it's not easy. It's not going to be easy to get people to agree on things across this vast land, but there are going to be changes.

I make a little speech on citizenship day every year when the citizens receive their little certificates, and I say to them: "Welcome. We are a multicultural country. We are a country which has vast resources, a long tradition of democracy, complete freedom of speech and freedom from fear in the main. We want you to bring with you what you've got, part of your culture, and we want you to add it to us and to our culture. I've just got two warnings. Don't try to change us too much too quickly, or we won't anymore be like the country that you wanted to come to. And the other thing is, leave your old feuds at home, because we don't really need those either, or we won't be the kind of country we are now."

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the Premier will close the debate.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We certainly appreciate those words of wisdom from the House Leader for the opposition. I think it was well said and certainly well received. Perhaps I don't agree with all the concepts put forth by the hon. member, but I certainly think we can agree on much of what's been said.

It was said as well a little earlier that we need to open up the process — to air the process. In fact, that's what we're doing. We now have a constitutional committee which is seeking input from citizens all over this province. Anyone wanting to make some suggestions as to where the constitutional change might be, how or what.... This will be well received by the committee. We'll have available as well a speakers' council in order to make sure that as many meetings as possible can be held throughout the whole of the province where this information could be provided freely before a vote is ever held.

I agree that there needs to be an opportunity for the information, whether it's preliminary or whether it's coming to perhaps proposed changes. There needs to be that opportunity to have more than just a yes-or-no question. There needs to be a lot of information out there. The process that is in place now will go some way towards that. If more can be done, then by all means we ought to see how we might best do it.

[5:00]

The member opposite mentioned that this is a time of change. I agree it's a time of change, and much of the change will be extremely difficult. There is perhaps disagreement on what we'll do or how it might be done; and obviously, too, there's the danger, as we see it now, that things will be done unilaterally and that Ottawa will attempt to negotiate various deals with Quebec. We've said if it's available to Quebec it ought to be available to other provinces — not only British Columbia but other provinces. You can't have a Canada where one part is more equal

[ Page 11860 ]

than the rest. If there are benefits or opportunities provided to one area, they ought to be similarly provided to other areas. So we'll be watching with keen interest to see what takes place between Canada and Quebec over the next while. But they are difficult times.

I don't agree with the opposition House Leader that somehow we need to have all of that strength at the centre. I think the country is too big to see all of the strength concentrated in one place, particularly when you have areas like British Columbia where we have a relatively small population and where obviously the clout from a Quebec or Ontario far outweighs what we could do alone or with the rest of the western provinces.

We can't have a process of further centralization — decentralization, in my view — which is why there are certain aspects in the Allaire report that might be appealing to some. There is that suggestion that we have a process of devolution where in fact certain functions be carried out by the provinces as opposed to having them done by the provinces and again federally. Just exactly what these services will be or how it is we sort through and come to an agreement I'm not sure. But we are an overgoverned people. You say it's not so much too much government as too little say by the people. I say it's too much government and too little say by the people. Perhaps we're almost together on that one.

This again is a part of a process. I know it will be welcomed, and I am appreciative of all the support in the House. It will be welcomed by the people. It may be a first step, and further things will need to be done, but it's a great first step. It's the first time it's been done in Canada, and I'm proud that we're able to do it right here in B.C.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 81, Constitutional Amendment Approval Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
APPROVAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 81; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 81, Constitutional Amendment Approval Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. FRASER: I call second reading of Bill 84, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND
VALIDATING, 1990 AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

HON. L. HANSON: It's my privilege to put forward for second reading Bill 84. This bill contains measures that will permit a new municipality, to be known as Winfield, to be formed in the central Okanagan. It will allow that new community to phase in property tax on farms and farm residences over a five-year period. This exemption on farm residences and improvements for the first year, and the partial exemption for the four following years, will greatly ease the transition to municipal status for the farm residents.

Bill 84 will also allow directors for three electoral areas to represent these areas on the district of Campbell River council when they have been included within the district boundary extensions. Appointing an official elected by each area will ensure continuity and representation at the local level after the municipal restructure is in place.

Bill 84 will also validate the establishment and borrowing bylaws of the Okanagan regional district for the Anarchist Mountain electrical power specified area, and it will enable the regional district to convert the specified area into a local service area. This will realign the means of cost recovery for the electrical service with the expectations of the service recipients.

Mr. Speaker, I am therefore happy to move second reading of Bill 84.

MR. BLENCOE: We have no problem with this legislation. When we come to committee, we may have a few questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the minister closes the debate.

HON. L. HANSON: As I said earlier, the new community of Winfield will be going to a referendum later this year. It is largely a farm community, and this will enable the impact of municipal status to be phased in. The ward system that the bill will make possible in Campbell River will be only for the time that those elected now have left in their term. The municipal status will then revert to the normal council election.

The final one, Mr. Speaker, is to correct a difficulty that was perceived after the original act was put in place and will put it back on course for what the original intention was. It's my pleasure now to move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

[ Page 11861 ]

Bill 84, Municipalities Enabling and Validating, 1990 Amendment Act, 1991, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 85, Mr. Speaker.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

HON. MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, these amendments will provide parental leave and demonstrate the government's commitment to assist British Columbia's parents to balance their family and work obligations. I urge rapid passage of these changes to ensure that the parents who are eligible for leave provided by the recent unemployment insurance amendments will have their jobs and fringe benefit entitlements protected.

As I indicated, the new parental leave will be 12 weeks long and is available to both the mother and the father of the child. There is also provision for a further five-week extension where a newborn child or the adopted child will be at least six months of age at the time when it comes into the parents' care and is certified by a physician to suffer from a physical, psychological or emotional condition.

The 32-week combined maternity and employment standards parental leave will allow an employee to take the maximum special benefits permitted under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Compared to several other jurisdictions, there continues to be no qualifying period of unemployment for an employee to be eligible for the new parental leave or existing maternity leave.

The British Columbia act has also long provided for continuation of employee benefits during the period of leave, which is another feature now being introduced in some other jurisdictions for the first time.

Besides the current amendments, we are planning to initiate more comprehensive reviews of the Employment Standards Act later this year. This review will include, among many other issues, a further look at issues relating to the problems experienced by working parents in attempting to balance work and family responsibilities.

I move that the bill be read a second time.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to make a few comments with respect to this bill. Let me say at the outset that we will be supporting this bill. It is much needed and in some ways overdue.

I only have to remind the new Minister of Labour that earlier this session — I believe in June or July — this side of the House tabled legislation which reflected the provisions of this act and asked that this be done. I'm thankful that again the government has caught up with the opposition and has begun to introduce legislation that reflects some of the values that we put forward in private members' bills that we introduced earlier on.

I should also say that this is the second piece of labour legislation that we've seen brought before this House since we reconvened in March. However, it is the first piece of labour legislation that has been brought forward by the new Minister of Labour.

I have a couple of comments about that. I don't want to get into debate on Bill 83, but certainly in my view that was labour legislation. Of course the minister has to account for why it is that he chose not to introduce such legislation,

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. These are not estimates; we're dealing with the principle of this bill. We're not doing what should have been in this bill or what should have been in another bill, nor which minister should carry it.

MR. SIHOTA: That was the only comment I was going to make about this being the second piece of labour legislation.

Let me also say that this bill brings us up to date with the federal provisions. Other jurisdictions — Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba — have already amended their employment standards acts to accommodate the unemployment insurance changes that were introduced by the federal government some time ago.

In dealing with the matter of parental leave, this bill does not speak to the matter of this being a minimum floor for all working people In British Columbia. Again, the situation remains that individuals can contract out of the provisions of this act. We therefore have the situation now in British Columbia where some people who are covered by the provisions of this act will enjoy benefits that are more generous than what they have negotiated through other agreements, being collective agreements or the other. It would have been far more appropriate if the minister, in introducing this legislation, had made it clear that this would be the floor, and that no British Columbian should have rights that are less than what is stated in this legislation.

That would have been welcome news to me, and it would have been the welcome announcement of a principle that the government would have embraced: namely, the employment standards legislation, by itself, should be the floor in this province as opposed to just simply a guide in areas where collective agreements are less than this. In other words, this should be the floor.

[5:15]

In addition, let me also say to the minister, as I said at the outset, that I think this is good legislation. His ministry should be commended for bringing it forward at this time. It is important, however, that parents know of these rights. I don't intend to go into a long diatribe about government advertising, but I want to say to the minister that they should really be promoting these provisions.

Just prior to the Christmas period, we had a baby boy — on December 18. When I was at the hospital, I

[ Page 11862 ]

noticed that the provincial government hands out a packet of information to all parents of a new child, which provides them with all sorts of information on what they can do with respect to names, registering for medical coverage, vital statistics and so on. May I suggest that it would be appropriate if, within that packet of information, the government could find a way to put in a note about these provisions, so that parents are notified right off the bat at the hospital that these provisions exist. Something like that would not cost a lot. It would piggyback something that already exists, and it would allow for the public to become aware of the rights they have under the Employment Standards Act. The minister knows as well as I do that currently under the Employment Standards Act, because of the inadequacy of the staff administering the act, quite often people are not informed of their rights.

Mr. Speaker, you are quite correct in saying that we should deal with that matter later on in estimates. At that time, I will do so with the minister. The suggestion I've just made may be one way to make sure people are informed of their rights at the very time they are pondering whether or not to take advantage of them.

There are just a couple of other comments that I want to make on this legislation. It is certainly a very thoughtful touch — if I can put it that way — on the part of this legislation to provide the extra two weeks that we see in section 4 of the bill. I want to put the minister on notice that I will be asking some questions, because as I read the legislation — and if there is need for an amendment in this regard, I am sure we could agree on it — it might be that in certain situations people might not have the full 35 weeks that the minister would envision in the legislation.

They may be able to get 35 instead of 32 weeks, and as I read the legislation, it's not clear if the top is 32 weeks or if it's 35. When we go through committee stage on that, I'll point out to the minister that there's some ambiguity that needs to be clarified there.

Again, let me say in conclusion that I'm glad that this bill — which mirrors what we introduced some time ago — has now been put forward by the government. I can assure the minister that it will have our support for speedy passage through this House so that it can become law and parents can secure the benefits provided under this legislation.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'll be very brief. While the previous speaker has already indicated that the opposition will be supporting this legislation, I'd like to encourage the government in two areas.

First of all, I think it is important that the government recognize that both men and women are sharing parenting responsibilities, as you have done in this legislation as far as maternity and paternity leave goes. But because of that reality, it's important that employment standards reflect that reality more extensively, and I would ask the Labour ministry to look at the possibility of reflecting the needs of parents when children get sick and parents need to have the flexibility to have time off to deal with those children.

Having made that appeal, I want to make another comment about how amusing this legislation is. The provision in this legislation that deals with maternity leave — and I want to read it for the House — says that a request under a specific section has to be made at least four weeks before the day specified in the request for the commencement of maternity leave. I'm leaving a little bit out there. It must be accompanied by a certificate from a medical practitioner stating that the employee is indeed pregnant.

Mr. Minister, it really does escape me — the necessity of having a woman prove to her employer that she is pregnant. The added level of bureaucracy, the point of having it in the law, the point of timing it.... For the minister's sake, it is often quite obvious that women are pregnant. It Is also quite obvious that pregnancies aren't always that predictable. To put those requirements into the legislation seems to be a little excessive, to say the least, and seems to be just slightly out of touch with the reality that parents face when they are expecting a new child. I would just point that out to the minister and hope you reconsider the need for legislation to prove pregnancy and to establish timing for leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. RABBITT: I certainly appreciate the support from the opposition benches on my first piece of legislation. Yes, I agree with them: it is good legislation, and it has been thought out fairly well. I do feel that there are probably areas we can look at in the future. As I mentioned, we will be reviewing further elements of the entire proposal in the future.

The one comment I can address as this time is that yes, the ministry will be letting people throughout British Columbia know exactly what their rights are under this act. I'll see that you are made aware of the program when it comes forward.

I'm looking forward to discussion in committee. With that, I will move that the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 85, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1991, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: This chamber being so efficient, and there being nothing left on the order paper, I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:24 p.m.