1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1992
Morning Sitting
Volume 2, Number 16
[ Page 1123 ]
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
Prayers.
F. Gingell: In the members' gallery today are two longtime and very dear friends, Mr. and Mrs. Dick Farmer from Victoria, B.C. I ask the House to join me in making them welcome.
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 2, Mr. Speaker.
MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION,
TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
Hon. T. Perry: I have the honour to move second reading of Bill 2, the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology Statutes Amendment Act, 1992.
This bill proposes amendments to the Accountants (Management) Act to change the professional designation of a member of the Society of Management Accountants of British Columbia from "registered industrial accountant" to "certified management accountant." This amendment will bring British Columbia, the last jurisdiction in Canada to make this change, in line with the other provinces. It will allow members of the Society of Management Accountants of B.C. to use the same designation used not only by their counterparts in other provinces, but by members of the society in British Columbia who are registered in other jurisdictions.
The second amendment is to the Apprenticeship Act. The amendment will provide the provincial Apprenticeship Board with the necessary authority to charge fees for exemption permits issued under the act. These permits exempt an individual who is working in a specified designated trade from holding a compulsory certificate of qualification.
I see the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations beaming, but I hasten to remind him that these fees and the number of exemption certificates will be modest. This will be a minor deficit reduction initiative offered by my ministry -- a cause for mild celebration.
The provincial Apprenticeship Board currently has the authority to charge fees on issuing a certificate of qualification as well as a certificate of apprenticeship, but not when it issues an exemption permit in the case of individuals who have demonstrated a high skill level and for whatever reason the board judges fit to exempt them from the standard requirements. Yet, of course, there are administrative costs attached to that process.
The third amendment will repeal the British Columbia Association of Colleges Incorporation Act, as the British Columbia Association of Colleges no longer exists. It has been replaced by the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia. The Legislature moves swiftly to adapt to modern reality. This amendment will give recognition to the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia as the only organization that represents college and institute boards in B.C. The Advanced Education Council of B.C. is broader than the now-defunct British Columbia Association of Colleges, with representation not only of boards of governors but also of the presidents from both colleges and institutes, such as the B.C. Institute of Technology and the Pacific Marine Training Institute.
The fourth amendment to the College and Institute Act will replace the requirement that.... In case anyone's following, it's not the fourth amendment but the fourth area to be dealt with. I think it is number 6. We'll come to these more in committee -- for those who are interested. The fourth area of amendment is to the College and Institute Act to replace the requirement that institutions report and justify their existence every five years with a requirement that they maintain ongoing planning and evaluation with periodic reporting to the minister. This amendment will relieve colleges and institutes of a statutory duty to provide a report by March 31, 1992 -- I think these notes were written before March 31, 1992 -- or to provide a report periodically in which they are to set out the reasons, if any, why they should continue to exist. That was a requirement of the original bill at the time of the development of the college system when perhaps there was less confidence in the colleges than now exists with some tens of thousands of students registered in them. Such a requirement can be construed as a lack of government commitment to the college and institute system, considering that some of the institutions have been in operation for approximately 20 years, or perhaps discriminatory against them vis-�-vis the universities of B.C. But it's preferable to require ongoing planning and evaluation processes with periodic reporting to the minister and, of course, the usual monitoring by not only the ministry but also the public.
The fifth area of amendment, the Seminary of Christ the King Act -- that would be section 7 -- is to update references in the tax exemption section of the act to refer to applicable statutes as currently titled. This amendment was first requested by the Seminary of Christ the King in 1990. Seminary members and no doubt the member for Mission-Kent will be pleased that action has finally been taken on their outstanding request.
The sixth area of amendment, the University Foundations Act -- here's where we get into some real meat, hon. members -- is to enable the interim governing council of the University of Northern B.C. to act as a university board of governors for the purposes of the University Foundations Act. With this amendment there will no longer be unequal treatment between the University of Northern B.C. and the other established universities in the province -- a blow for justice for northern British Columbia and the northern members of the Legislature sitting with us today. The interim governing council of the University of Northern B.C. will have the powers of a university board of governors for the purpose of the act -- that is, the University Foundations Act -- and will henceforth find it easier to
[ Page 1124 ]
raise charitable donations and conduct fund-raising in the same way as other university foundations.
[10:15]
With that said, striking a positive note of enthusiasm for the future development of the University of Northern B.C. and the north of British Columbia and all the other good things in this bill, I commend this bill to the House and move second reading.
D. Mitchell: I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill 2, the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology Statutes Amendment Act, 1992. As the minister has indicated, this bill does do some good things. We can generally support this bill, but because it's effectively an omnibus-type bill, in the sense that it deals with several statutes and amends several different acts, it does require a bit of comment.
The change to the Accountants (Management) Act that the minister referred to, which changes the designation and use by members of the Society of Management Accountants from RIA to CMA and basically prohibits the use of registered industrial accountant, is a change that the Society of Management Accountants has supported and asked for. As a result, it's timely; it can be supported. We certainly have no difficulty with that in terms of the principle of this bill. Several of the other changes are worthwhile as well, and we can support them.
The change to the British Columbia Association of Colleges Incorporation Act, though, which gives effect to the winding up of the affairs of the B.C. Association of Colleges and basically supports or bolsters the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia, and really makes the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia the body in terms of our post-secondary educational system, is something that deserves a bit of comment, because it assumes, first of all, that we have a system of post-secondary education, a system of advanced education, in British Columbia.
While we can support this, and we have no difficulty in supporting the notion that the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia should be the body, and that we should have a single body to deal with matters relating to both colleges and institutes in British Columbia, I think this is an issue that we will obviously have to canvass further. The appropriate place to do that might be in the estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. The notion of a system is a good one, but do we have a system? Do we have a system of post-secondary education in British Columbia today, an integrated system where our colleges, universities and training institutes are all part of an interrelated, comprehensive system? I think we want to, and I think we aspire to have that. But this change on the Advanced Education Council....
B. Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member is referring to sections that are not within the act. I think we are debating Bill 2, the principle of what is in the bill; not what's not in the bill.
Deputy Speaker: The point is well taken. The member will hear those cautions and proceed, please.
D. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking to a specific section of this bill, which is an omnibus bill, and in terms of the principle of what we're doing by establishing the Advanced Education Council as the principal body -- as the single body -- to deal with the advanced education sector, both colleges and institutes. We have no difficulty with this section but, as I was trying to indicate, we will want to canvass this more thoroughly when the estimates for the minister's ministry are debated in this House this session.
In terms of the other changes in this act, the change to the College and Institute Act is an interesting one. The change to the College and Institute Act, I think, is removing an archaic section which provides that every college or institute should report to the minister every five years to justify their continued existence. I think the fact that this bill would change that and make a provision for there being a need for ongoing justification, ongoing dialogue, ongoing communication, in fact, between each college and institute and the ministry is a good one. We can support that; we can welcome that amendment.
We are glad to see in its place a requirement to maintain ongoing consultation between the ministry and institutions. The one comment I might make is that consultation and reporting must go both ways. It shouldn't be sufficient simply for each college, each institute in our advanced education sector to report on an ongoing basis to the ministry. The ministry, in turn, should be reporting to each of those institutes and colleges within the system. Consultation is really a two-way process. We would want to see the ministry and the government being kept fully informed from each college and institute, and reporting back as well.
The budget that was tabled in this House and the budget for the Ministry of Advanced Education, which we will be debating in estimates, seems to indicate that there is not sufficient consultation on the needs of the system -- if I can used that term again -- of post-secondary education. That is an issue that we will canvass more fully during the estimates for this ministry.
In terms of the other sections of this act that I might want to deal with, there is one in particular -- the University Foundations Act -- which ensures that the council of the University of Northern British Columbia may act as a university for the purposes of the University Foundations Act. The minister referred to the fact that the interim governing board will now become a full governing board for this university. We're glad to see that the governing council of the new UNBC, as it is going to be called, is fully empowered by this bill, and we look forward to seeing the UNBC come on stream as a full university, as a provincial resource, with special focus on the needs of northern British Columbia.
The fact that this bill is helping our new university come on stream is positive; we can support that. It's one more step in a process that is going to lead towards the eventual achievement of a new university in British Columbia -- a northern university. That is good because it's a step in the right direction, but we do have some serious concerns about the delay with UNBC. That's an issue that we will canvass during estimates as
[ Page 1125 ]
well. There has been a postponement of one year in the starting date for UNBC. This is a step in the right direction. We're now starting to bring British Columbia's fourth public university on stream, but in a broader sense this is an issue that will have to be canvassed during debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology.
With those few comments, I'd like to say we can support Bill 2. Many of the amendments in this omnibus bill we can support, but they require further discussion. There is an appropriate place for discussion of those, and we will be following up on that.
Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the next speaker, I'd like to comment on references to pursuing this bill in estimates. Members will be aware that legislation is not discussed in estimates, but that in committee stage of the bills you will have an opportunity to canvass those points.
J. MacPhail: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. MacPhail: It's my pleasure to introduce in the gallery today about 30 students, their teachers and some parents from a very important high school in my riding -- Templeton Secondary School. These particular students are from the mini-high school. I'll be meeting with them at 11:45, so I urge them to make sure that they pay close attention to this important debate and ask lots of questions about what's going on in the House. I ask the House to give them a warm welcome.
Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Abbotsford, on the bill.
H. De Jong: In the last couple of weeks, or perhaps a month, most of us have been in contact with an accountant to get our tax papers finalized. For some time accountants have lobbied the government to make a change in this, and perhaps it's timely to do it at this point in time.
The only things that I have some questions on I guess will come up during third reading. Specifically regarding those who are qualified to do the work, they would have to pay a fee in British Columbia. In my opinion, the fee seems to be somewhat excessive. It seems like another tax grab, if I may call it that. Although there may not be many in that position, that worries me somewhat.
Further down in the bill there is the name change from the B.C. Association of Colleges to whatever the other one is.
Hon. T. Perry: The Advanced Education Council.
H. De Jong: Exactly. Thank you, hon. minister.
It would almost appear that once it is assumed that such an institution is established, it has a right to be funded by the taxpayer in perpetuity. I have a little difficulty with that. Perhaps during third reading we can explore that a little more so we can get a better understanding as to what is really anticipated under this particular section.
Other than that, I really have no comments on the bill. I think it was expected by the accountants' fraternity. If that's an almost unanimous request by them, then why should we argue it?
Hon. T. Perry: I thank opposition members for their comments. We'll have a chance to further pursue anything of substantial interest in committee stage. I now close debate and move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 2, Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, 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. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 22, hon. Speaker.
BARBERS AND HAIRDRESSERS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, where are the members for Prince George-Omineca and Vancouver-Mount Pleasant now that we need them? I see some hon. members nodding forward to indicate they're prepared to act as substitutes.
I have the honour to move second reading of Bill 22, the Barbers and Hairdressers Statutes Amendment Act, 1992. These sections propose amendments to the Barbers Act and to the Hairdressers Act. Members will doubtless be reminded of the first reading introduction of the bill and perhaps of the controversy that erupted briefly in the press in late November 1991, which led to the perception that these amendments are necessary.
The purpose of the amendments is the following: to remove the requirement that all barbers and hairdressers must produce medical certificates stating that they are free from all contagious and infectious diseases. The reason for the amendment is that it became apparent to the board of examiners of the hairdressers' association last fall that under the existing law, hairdressers might be required to produce an annual medical certificate stating they were free from disease, and by assumption, incapable of infecting their clients during the ordinary practice of their trade.
This is a requirement of an old law dating to the early 1930s which had not been routinely enforced. A zealous enforcer of the law, from a profession not to be mentioned, reminded the association of the letter of the law. The association took steps to begin to enforce it, at which point the matter came to public attention.
[10:30]
Members may be amused to know -- and it's a privilege.... I'm sorry to see that the respected bureau chief of the Vancouver Sun has departed the gallery, because this is one of the rare occasions when I can defer to the media the credit for major legislative
[ Page 1126 ]
change in British Columbia. This landmark legislation, were we operating in a different jurisdiction, might be referred to as the "Soles amendment," after Mr. Linden Soles of BCTV evening news, who had the courtesy to telephone me at about 11:28 one evening and ask me what I thought about the Barbers Act and the Hairdressers Act.
You can imagine my reaction to this triumph of investigative journalism, but my curiosity exceeded my sagacity and I agreed to be interviewed live, only to learn that in fact the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology had statutory authority for the Barbers Act and the Hairdressers Act and that the acts were so anachronistic as to require a health certificate for all practitioners. Not surprisingly, some members of the community, including some hairdressers and barbers, became worried and alarmed that someone -- perhaps government -- was attempting to enforce an unreasonable requirement and perhaps even to move in the direction of mandatory HIV or AIDS-virus testing for hairdressers and barbers. It became necessary to diffuse the situation and to apply a modest dose of common sense, and that's exactly what was done by the government at the time to assure hairdressers that in fact if an anachronistic law remained on the statutes, this Legislature would make haste to correct that situation, Hon. Speaker, and would not tolerate anachronisms in this Legislature.
That's where we stand today. We're removing an outdated requirement. Nobody seems to know, for those who are curious, why the requirement for the health certificate was present in the act originally. Members of the distinguished medical profession whom I have consulted -- those who are not attending a study session today -- assure me that the only apparent reasons would be the transmission of lice or perhaps of tuberculosis in the era of the early 1930s, when tuberculosis was still common. Even for those diseases, no one has yet been able to explain why it was felt that an annual medical certificate would somehow guarantee that lice or tuberculosis might not be transmitted in the interval between issuing one certificate and the next. It is certainly obvious that there is no requirement for a health certificate. Barbers and hairdressers are no more capable of transmitting infection to their clients than are any other people in the community, and therefore the bill will remove that requirement. It's as simple as that.
The second area of amendment -- a more substantive purpose -- was derived from a close reading of the act during the redrafting. It came to our attention that barbers and hairdressers were required, as you will remember from first-reading debate, to be of "good moral character." We felt in general that all people should be of good moral character. It was a rather anachronistic phrase with ambiguous connotations and was not routinely applied to most other professions in British Columbia. The second area of amendment will strike the word "moral" from the requirement and simply require that barbers and hairdressers be of "good character."
The third area is to replace the terms "infectious and contagious" with "communicable" in reference to the scope of the examinations, including the protection of the public from infectious and contagious diseases. The examinations of barbers and hairdressers by the examining boards do require, appropriately, that barbers and candidates for the licence ought to be familiar with routine infectious-disease control, such as proper hand-washing, sterilization of instruments -- razors -- which theoretically might be able to transmit some disease. Hepatitus B is probably the best example. It is appropriate that the individuals be examined in training on those issues, and we will simply be bringing the terminology in line with the other statutes of British Columbia by substituting "communicable" for "infectious and contagious." There's not really any difference in substance; it's simply a matter of aligning the statutes.
The fourth area is that -- again I see the Minister of Finance turning with interest -- the amount of fines charged for offences under the Barbers Act will be updated, but if I recall correctly, these fines are paid to the Barbers' Association, not to the government. We'll come back to that in committee. I can't remember. The amount of fines was prescribed in statute back in the 1930s and has never been adjusted since. I think they stood at $15 before.
The fifth area is to allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to prescribe the amount of the examination fees charged under the Hairdressers Act. The fine was $2, and the examination fee was $15. These may need to be adjusted periodically, and it's easier to do that by regulation than requiring the time of hon. members every time an adjustment needs to be made.
By repealing that requirement -- I see that I've already consumed my speaking notes -- we've covered the ground, and I hope hon. members will recognize this is a proud day and join me in acknowledging Mr. Linden Soles of BCTV for helping; although it's not our usual practice to attach anyone's name to a bill, he can feel that he has done his bit for democracy and good government as well.
D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to rise in second reading debate on Bill 22, which is the Barbers and Hairdressers Statutes Amendment Act, 1992. When the bill was read a first time in this House a short while ago, there was some levity in the House, and it was a memorable occasion, but certainly the bill is a serious matter. It's a bill that we can generally support.
The fact that the bill singles out barbers and hairdressers and it's amending that act is interesting and worthy of comment. You can take a look at other professionals -- doctors, nurses, dentists -- who are not subject to the same strictures or requirements despite the fact that they, if infected with a communicable disease, could possibly pose a threat to public health. It's interesting. The minister has correctly pointed out that this was a bit of an anachronistic provision that needed to be addressed.
As far as the transmission of disease goes, the existing regulations did not protect people from the transmission of these diseases in any event. If we wanted to talk about HIV, AIDS infection, there's no way that HIV carriers could be tested on a regular basis.
[ Page 1127 ]
The virus could be contracted between tests. I don't think it was effective in any event. In addition and more importantly, mandatory testing is an infringement on individual rights, and it's contrary to Liberal thinking. That's another reason why we can support this bill. It's outdated.
The minister referred in his first reading comments on this bill when it was introduced in this House to the existing requirement that hairdressers and barbers be of good moral character. That provision poses the same question about discrimination in that it singles out barbers and hairdressers in a way that other professionals are not singled out in our society. It puts them on a level playing-field, and I think that's desirable.
There are other opinions on this bill, but we have been in contact with members of the hairdressers' association, and they support the bill. We can support it as well. We do have some concerns, which we will want to raise in committee stage on this bill. With those few words, I think we can support this bill in second reading stage.
H. De Jong: Attending a barber shop is usually a fairly pleasant occasion. Discussions in a barbershop are usually very informative, and there's often a lot of humour. It's generally a good place to go once a month or perhaps even more often, depending on the need. So our party hasn't got much of a problem with this bill. It sets out the right trend in making sure that people who provide that type of service do have a good level of health, and it certainly protects the public attending barbershops. So really we have no problem with the bill other than, again, the fine increases. If that's an acceptable way by the association to curb those who do not meet the standards within the association, then I guess we haven't got an awful lot to argue with.
Hon. T. Perry: I think the hon. member was expressing about as politely as he could that he felt I'm looking a little bit shaggy. I've been feeling a bit mangy myself, and I'll make haste to the barbershop.
I want to close debate, hon. Speaker, simply by making a final play for that quotation on the front page of the Globe and Mail tomorrow, by assuring British Columbians that they are safe in the salons of this province.
Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 22, Barbers and Hairdressers Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, 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. G. Clark: Boy, great progress today! I'd like to call second reading of Bill 23.
UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
Hon. T. Perry: I'm delighted that so many members feel that this morning we're exemplifying good government.
I have the honour to move second reading of Bill 23, University Amendment Act, 1992. This bill proposes amendments to the University Act and the College and Institute Act. The purpose of these amendments is the following: (1) to repeal section 80 of the University Act, which prohibits university faculty from forming faculty associations or trade unions pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act.
[10:45]
The reasoning behind this amendment is that not only were university faculty associations unfairly singled out as an isolated group in society and illegitimately discriminated against, but also the International Labour Organization, a subsidiary of the United Nations organization, had ruled that in fact this practice in British Columbia contravened the United Nations charter. So by this amendment we are not only bringing our laws into convention with an international treaty signed by Canada, but we are also recognizing that university faculty members are not different in their rights from school teachers, college and institute faculty or other people in society.
The second purpose of the act is to authorize public colleges and institutes to grant an associate degree in arts or science upon successful completion of a two-year academic program that complies with provincial standards. The amendment is necessary because the University Act currently restricts the granting of degrees to universities. This amendment will allow for the establishment of associate degree programs at public colleges and institutes throughout the province.
We will come back to questions raised by the hon. opposition House Leader and critic for Advanced Education regarding the system for advanced education in British Columbia during the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. It may be appropriate, as we discuss these amendments in second reading and in committee state, to discuss the implications for the further development of our post-secondary education system as a truly integrated, diversified system.
I see the former Minister of Health and former Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology -- did it have the same name in his day? -- listening with interest because he, doubtless, will have confronted some of the same issues of deriving the maximum benefit not only for the taxpayers' dollars, but also for efficiency of students being able to achieve their goals within a very complex system, which sometimes performs more as a collection of individual fiefdoms than as a truly integrated system.
It has been a challenge for all ministers and often for students to thread their way through what one might naively think was a system, but what in many cases does not function that way. I will be delighted if members of the House raise those issues during the estimates debate on our ministry's spending, but I think it's appropriate to refer to them a little now.
The amendment allows for the establishment of associate degree programs at public colleges and institutes throughout the province. The expected benefits of such programs are improved retention of students in the post-secondary system and improved mobility for
[ Page 1128 ]
students between and among the colleges and universities. In other words, there is an enhanced expectation that a student, who for whatever reason moves her or his household from one college region to another and wishes to transfer, will find it easier to do so, and that we can help remove some of the frustrating arbitrary barriers that currently face such students.
Universities will be able to recognize more easily the credentials of college students, and college students will encounter less frustration by the sometimes elitist or snobbish approach of the universities to students who have worked equally hard and achieved equally valuable academic or other achievements in the college system. The development of associate degrees recognizing two years of study in community colleges and institutes will help to facilitate that process in conjuction with efforts such as the establishment of the Council on Admissions and Transfer, established within the last couple of years, which also addresses such issues.
The second purpose is the increased and more uniform attention accorded to the development of the general skills and knowledge required for successful employment. We believe that recognizing two years of study by granting an associate degree will benefit students, who will find that credential an aid in securing employment. It will also benefit employers, who will find it somewhat easier to evaluate the credentials of students. An associate degree recognizing two years of successful study will become valuable evidence of competence.
Thirdly, this initiative will result in the improved quality of programs in all of our institutions as a result of the systematic review of requirements. Not only will that systematic review eliminate arbitrary requirements.... Perhaps some hon. members would still argue a position, incontestable 40 or 50 years ago, that Latin be a requirement for graduation. Perhaps some here would still argue that, but probably relatively few. More members now would argue that Chinese or Japanese or an aboriginal language might be a good requirement for graduation. That's an example of how in some ways our system has remained rigid for years. The old and arbitrary requirement to study Latin gave way only very slowly in the face of fairly strong evidence that more practical or rational requirements should supplant it. The establishment of associate degrees will increase the emphasis that not only the Ministry of Advanced Education but society at large and students and teachers will put on continuously revising requirements to make them effective and efficient.
This amendment will be especially welcomed by those colleges which are already offering courses leading to an associate degree but which lack the legislative authority to grant that degree. Therefore I have pleasure in moving now that the bill be read a second time.
D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to rise and speak in second reading on Bill 23.
Bill 23, which is entitled the University Amendment Act, 1992, gives me some difficulties. There are two main aspects of this bill that are not related. I would almost have preferred it if this bill had come in in the form of two separate pieces of legislation, because we could have debated them and dealt with them separately rather than lumping them in together. They're not necessarily related. They're both amending the same act, but they're dealing with different issues. There is no single underlying principle to this bill; there are two issues. We need to deal with them in order.
Perhaps I could deal first with the granting of associate degrees. This is a very good step in principle. It's something we can support. We support the notion that in a time when advanced education is increasingly important, when we want to include more and more British Columbians in the system of post-secondary education, the granting of associate degrees should help to improve access.
I do have some concerns as to whether or not the government's recent budget is complementary to that goal. One could certainly argue -- and we will be arguing this later on in estimates -- that the budget may in fact have the effect of a net decrease in access, in terms of overall enrolment. We can debate that later. Having the possibility of granting associate degrees in this bill may possibly open up access, and that's something we can support.
We're living in a time when many people find that a full university degree does not meet their needs. It's simply not practical to consider spending four years in an academic program at university. It's a long-range program, and a lot of people can't meet that commitment. But if there's an opportunity for them to attain an associate degree on a two-year basis through a college and to have that degree transferable to a university, that might improve the flexibility in our system and encourage more people to participate in the post-secondary system by developing some training or advanced education. We think that's desirable.
Given the demands of the modern family in their jobs and the demands on their lives, or simple economic necessity, it's not often possible for people to take four, five, six or seven years out of their lives to go back to school to get a university degree. So again, a two-year associate degree has some merit, and it's a step in the right direction.
There's a need to make sure that we can align this within our system to the needs of individual British Columbians and to the needs of the economy and our society in general. As Liberals, we believe in the importance of taking a needs-based approach to post-secondary education. We must determine what the needs of British Columbians are and take a needs-based approach. Granting associate degrees should be helpful in that regard, and it's a step in the right direction.
We do have a couple of concerns, though, about granting associate degrees, as provided for under this bill. The Minister of Advanced Education, in particular, must ensure, through his ministry, that these associate degrees are quality degrees. I would urge the minister to make sure that these degrees are well known by the public and well respected and well promoted by the institutions offering them and that the individuals bearing an associate degree will have been provided
[ Page 1129 ]
with training and educational experiences that will mark them as quality thinkers and as contributors, as doers, in our society.
There's another concern about these associate degrees that must be addressed. We can support them, but we must make sure that there is complementarity -- if I can use that term -- between these degrees and the four-year degrees granted today by our universities or our university colleges that have been established in British Columbia.
We must make sure that these degrees don't depreciate the currency of a university education, a post-secondary education in British Columbia. For instance, this question must be addressed: are there going to be different entrance requirements? Of course, there are different entrance requirements in the institutions of our post-secondary educational system today. But if we have different entrance requirements for an associate degree, are those degrees going to be compatible? Are they going to be complementary to the degrees that are currently being granted by institutions in our system right now? Of course, this is a question of the wisest use of resources. Credits must be fully transferable among all our institutions in our post-secondary educational system.
Those are some concerns. We're concerned, as well, about the access issue, which I raised earlier, because I think the associate degrees are going to improve access; they should improve access. But we already have overcrowding in our universities and colleges. We already have classes that are larger than they should be. We have students who can't get into universities and colleges. If we're going to improve access and encourage people to partake in post-secondary education by granting associate degrees, there are some other issues that do have to be addressed, by the minister in particular. I'm hoping that he is going to address them. Of course, we are going to be debating these issues further.
In general, and in principle, this is a very good step. We can support -- and I would urge members of this House to support -- the granting of associate degrees.
There's another issue here. I almost wish that this would be a separate bill, a completely separate piece of legislation, so that we could deal with this matter separately, because it is not related. But it is an important issue: it's the removal of section 80 of the University Act. I'd like to address that in some detail.
By repealing section 80 of the University Act this bill is effectively eliminating the section that says that the Industrial Relations Act does not apply to the employer-employee relationship between a university and its faculty members. What are the implications of that? We've really got to think about this, especially at a time when the labour laws of the province of British Columbia are under review by the minister's colleague the Minister of Labour, who has launched a complete review of the Industrial Relations Act and is now engaging in public consultation. He has panels going around the province seeking input and consultation on whether or not the Industrial Relations Act should be changed or amended and whether or not the labour laws of the province should be amended. That's a process that has been initiated by the minister's colleague the Minister of Labour. It's a process that has just started. We have no idea where it's going.
[11:00]
I have no confidence, as a member of this Legislature, that I can predict in any fashion what direction that consultative process is going to go. While it's ongoing and has just been initiated, here we have an amendment to an act that repeals section 80 of the University Act and gives the right of faculty in universities to form unions. In general, I agree with the right of workers to group together to form a union -- we can be in support of that -- or any other association that they choose. We believe in the rights of employees in any workplace to organize collectively as they so choose, whether it be in the form of an association, a union, or what have you.
We have some concerns about this amendment at this time, especially given the fact that we've had some labour strife in our post-secondary educational system in the last few months since this government has come to power. In the last six months we've seen, since the NDP has formed the government, major disputes at BCIT and a prolonged dispute at the University of British Columbia. That was not dealing with faculty per se. One could easily argue that if support staff have the right to organize and if they have the right to strike, that faculty should as well. One could easily make that argument, and it's logical. Will it mean that we're going to have more labour strife in our post-secondary educational institutions? That question needs to be asked, and it must be answered. Students can't be held hostages in labour disputes.
We have a provision in the existing Industrial Relations Act of this province that allows for the declaration of educational institutions as essential services. If the minister so desires, under the existing act, the provision of educational services can be declared an essential service so that students will not be held hostage and will not be victims of labour disputes. That's important. Education has to be looked at in ways we haven't looked at it before. Of course, that section of the act has never been used. I wonder if, as part of this review that's ongoing by the minister's colleague the Minister of Labour, that section will even be part of the act anymore.
We take a look at this amendment, and we have to have answers to those questions before we can pass judgment. Why should we be asked today to approve this amendment to allow faculty to form unions, which is something we can generally support, when there's an ongoing process with the minister's colleague the Minister of Labour addressing the much larger issue of labour relations in the province. It seems premature to me. There is a good argument that this bill should be delayed until the larger review is conducted. We can't understand it; we can't fully appreciate it; and we can't comprehend the impact of this change unless we know the much larger direction that's going to be taking place with respect to the review of labour legislation -- and that's a process that has only just begun. Is this the time for changing labour relations in our universities?
[ Page 1130 ]
We have some other concerns with this. About 25 percent of Canadian universities have faculties that have formed unions as opposed to associations. Generally speaking, there isn't any major difference between those universities whose faculty are members of unions and those whose aren't. In my discussions and consultations with members of administrations and faculties of universities, the one difference in those universities where faculty are members of unions is that there is a slight difference in the collegiality of the faculty and the administration. Instead of having an employee-employer relationship, which sometimes leads to confrontation or bitterness in the workplace, those universities where there are associations, good management and a strong faculty have an air of collegiality, which has been important as part of the tradition of liberal arts universities in particular. Collegiality is important. I would hope we wouldn't lose that by this amendment. I'm not predicting that we would, but that's one concern that has been expressed to me. It needs to be put on the record.
Also, some concern has been expressed to me about possible infringement on academic independence. That should be discussed when we consider this bill. As an example of this point, in the recent and very unfortunate labour dispute at UBC, many academics had to decide whether to cross a picket line. It was a difficult decision for many. It was a traumatic experience. There were picket lines set up at UBC; support staff were on strike. Faculty had to decide whether to cross that picket line. I think most did. It's a difficult question for them, and there's a question here of academic independence and whether there's even a role for labour relations in our universities that provide the possibility for disputes that cause interference with the provision of educational services and that hold students hostage in labour disputes. I'm concerned about that. Some of the professors in the UBC dispute may have in general respected the right of the union to strike; but they also believed that their professional obligations to their students, research and independence were more important than respecting the picket line. They felt that strongly. It was a difficult decision for many of them, and most of them crossed the picket line.
We have some concern about the proposed changes in this bill -- whether they will serve to remove some of the freedom that an academic in our universities has today as an individual capable of making decisions, sometimes on competing principles. That's a difficult, traumatic decision. Perhaps then, the force to conform and to respect union solidarity may become more important than teaching and research. So I guess there is a question of priorities that we have to raise here. What is more important if you're a member of the faculty of one of our publicly funded universities? Is academic freedom more important? Is teaching, research and academic independence more important? Or is it more important to respect union solidarity as opposed to academic duties and responsibilities to students? These are important philosophical questions that have to be asked, and I think they should be answered before this bill can be passed.
There are many concerns about this bill. I believe that there is some support for it. We have to support it in principle, but we have to have some concerns about the timing of the bill. Why is it being brought in now? Why not after the government has finished its broad-based consultation that it has promised on labour relations? Why not wait until the larger issues of industrial relations and of the Industrial Relations Act are reviewed and then bring in this bill? What is the hurry? We've got to understand why this bill is brought in now. The minister has not addressed that in his comments on either first or second reading. When and if we get to closing debate on this bill, I would ask the minister to please address: why now? Why not wait until the Industrial Relations Act is reviewed, where there is public consultation and consultation that will hopefully include faculty associations, and universities as well, because it's an important dimension of the labour relations scene in British Columbia.
We really have to think about education in new ways. We have to think about where education fits in the industrial relations framework in British Columbia, and whether or not the essential service provisions in the Industrial Relations Act today are going to continue to apply -- or at least there's a possibility that they can be applied by a minister where the provision of educational services can be, and has been in the past, interrupted by a labour dispute. We're concerned about that. We're concerned that students should never have to be held hostage. We're concerned about the priorities of this government.
What are the priorities of the government? Should industrial relations and labour relations take precedence over the provision of educational services, over the provision of health care, or over the provision of other aspects of our modern society which I would consider to be essential services? With this bill, the signal is that this government has mixed-up priorities, because on the one hand they've launched a labour review -- a review of the Industrial Relations Act -- and sought public input, but on the other hand they're rushing this bill through, wanting to pass it now in advance of that. I think that's wrong, and I think that's a good argument for delaying this bill.
With those few words I will take my seat.
H. De Jong: I suppose that we are in agreement with many of the things the leader of the official opposition has said. We're very concerned about making the Industrial Relations Act apply to university faculty associations. I'm wondering whether there may not be some conflict of interest in this situation, because I understand that several members of the NDP caucus have been employed by B.C. colleges and institutes. Perhaps there is some problem there, or could be some problem in the future.
We agree basically with the associate degree. It's a good measure, I believe. But we are very concerned, as well, about requiring institutions to grant these sorts of degrees and that this can be ordered by the minister, which seems to me a little heavy-handed. I believe it leads to interference with the independence of the institution as such.
[ Page 1131 ]
I believe that this interferes with the traditional independence of academic institutions, but it does set up the potential for a conflict if the boards do not wish to, for whatever reason, grant the associate degrees and the minister requires that they be given. We have seen the independence of boards eroded on other occasions, and I don't think it leads to a good relationship between the ministry and the institutions as such, and we're very fearful of that.
In my final comment, I don't think, even though we agree very much and very strongly with the granting of the associate degree, that we can support this bill. P. RAMSEY: I rise in support of second reading of Bill 23, the University Amendment Act, 1992. This bill contains, I believe, two very important initiatives of this government in the field of advanced education, both of which are long overdue.
Earlier today we were dealing with the Bill 22, the Barbers and Hairdressers Statutes Amendment Act, 1992. We had some levity with some of the anachronistic provisions that we were amending. Mr. Speaker, I would assert that the amendments to the University Act proposed by Bill 23 deal with equally anachronistic provisions and seek to drag some provisions of that act into the late twentieth and early twenty-first century.
I'd like to deal with the two issues in the order that the House Leader for the opposition dealt with them, dealing first with the issue of granting of associate degrees and then with the provision of the right to access provisions of the Industrial Relations Act for university faculty.
We've had colleges in this province now for approximately 23 years. The first ones were established in the late sixties, the majority in the early 1970s. Those colleges are now in their maturity, and I think it is altogether appropriate that at this time we are extending the right of post-secondary institutions to grant these academic credentials called degrees from universities to colleges as well. I think this is an important step in the evolution of our system, and it recognizes the maturity of the college system as it has evolved over the last 20-some years.
[11:15]
My background is in the college system; I've been a teacher and administrator in that system. I'd just like to second some of the thoughts that the minister gave to this House on why these associate degrees are important.
First, retention. A variety of two-year programs are offered by colleges. Most of those programs lead to diplomas in areas like nursing, forest technology, early childhood education and a variety of others. There really has been no comparable, laid-out program in the area of university studies offered by colleges. They have offered a variety of courses transferable to other institutions, to the universities of the province. What this act does, though, is provide those colleges with a chance to formulate their own concept of what that two-year degree ought to be to achieve competence in a range of arts or science studies. I believe it will lead to increased retention of students who study in the university transfer component of colleges in this province.
The second main reason is, of course, to enhance transferability from one institution to another. It is important, I think, that the House realize that one of the impetuses for these amendments to the University Act was from the Council on Admissions and Transfer, which is charged with regulating how colleges and universities work together to formulate exactly the sort of systematic approach to post-secondary education that the opposition House Leader was speaking about.
Giving the colleges the right to offer associate degrees is an important step in the systematic approach to offering university education. It has wide support within the post-secondary community. I was privileged, a couple of years ago, to sit on a joint college-university committee examining the specific requirements for associate degrees, and there is wide consensus among university and college faculty and administrators that this would enhance transferability and, indeed, the quality of the programs offered.
The final comment I'd offer on the associate degrees, of course, is that it is a recognition of the credibility of our colleges around this province. It offers an important service that they can offer to their communities and to their graduates and to the employers of the province who will be looking at graduates coming from colleges with these associate degrees.
The second thing I'd like to turn to is, of course, the amendment to the University Act that strikes down section 80, which I think is probably as anachronistic as requiring certificates of good moral character from barbers and hairdressers. Section 80 bans access to unionization for one sector of employees in this province, university faculty. Rather than deal with the opposition House Leader's question, "What's the hurry in dealing with this amendment?" I would ask: why delay? This provision is anti-democratic; it's an infringement on the rights of employees in the university system, and it really has no place in contemporary legislation.
The opposition House Leader asserts that only a minority of Canadian university faculty have availed themselves of the right to unionize in other provinces. That is indeed accurate. But I would also point out to the opposition House Leader that, with very few exceptions, the provinces of this country allow university faculty the right to unionize if they so choose. This piece of legislation does not require university faculty to unionize. What it does is give them the choice, and surely choice is what we want for all employees.
Hon. T. Perry: You must be pro-choice.
P. Ramsey: Well said.
I think the opposition House Leader raises a variety of straw men in his opposition to this requirement. First, he asserts that removing section 80 from the University Act would somehow affect the collegiality between university professors and the administration of those universities. Like the opposition House Leader, I have worked in both unionized and non-unionized
[ Page 1132 ]
environments in the post-secondary sector. I must confess that I've seen no correlation at all between whether it's unionized or not unionized and the degree of collegiality.
Hon. T. Perry: Have you seen any collegiality?
P. Ramsey: On rare occasions. The minister asked whether I have seen any collegiality. At times, indeed I have, and at times, indeed, I've seen it within unionized sectors.
I think this is a figment. Collegiality will exist or not exist, depending on the personalities involved and on the management style of those charged with administering our universities. That is really where collegiality will come from.
Quite frankly, administrations in colleges and universities get exactly the labour relations they deserve. If they seek confrontation and deny consultation, they will get confrontation, whether it be in a unionized setting or a non-unionized setting. If they seek openness and involvement in setting academic priorities, they will foster an atmosphere of collegiality, whether in a unionized or a non-unionized setting.
Second, there's the assertion that giving university faculty the right to unionize will somehow infringe on academic independence. I'm at a loss to figure out where this assertion comes from. I have read the Industrial Relations Act with some care over the years, and I fail to see any provisions in that act which in any way impinge on the rights of university professors, deans or board of governors to set courses of study, to teach programs of instruction or to offer degrees to university students. It simply does not exist.
Finally, the opposition House Leader asks about the priorities of this government: labour relations versus carrying on with higher education. I would like to turn this back on the opposition House Leader and ask what the policy of the opposition is on this matter. Is it their policy to bar from unionization a large number of employees in this province? Is it their desire to say to a significant group of professional employees in this province: "We think you're second-class; we don't think you're to be trusted with deciding your own method of labour relations; we want to be paternalistic and tell you how you should organize, and this is one method you can't choose"? Is that really what the opposition wishes to have seen as their policy? Are there other groups in the public service or other groups of employees in this province that the opposition wishes to deny the right to unionize? I'd be interested in hearing that too. What is the opposition actually proposing in forms of the right to unionize?
The opposition House Leader suggests that this portion of Bill 23 repealing section 80 ought to be delayed until amendments to industrial relations legislation in this province are brought forward later in this session. I think we are confusing two issues here. One issue is simply a matter of rights: what shall the rights of employees to unionize be in this province? My answer is simple: they must be as broad as possible, and this section addresses that need. Indeed, by having section 80 exist, we are in contravention of international covenants that we've signed as a country. Canada has signed the international labour agreement. The International Labour Organization has clearly stated that section 80 is a violation of that covenant. Let us get in line with international labour law and repeal this section.
Finally, I would like to just touch briefly on the history of section 80. I referred to it earlier as an anachronistic section, and I'd like to just recount briefly where this section came from. Section 80 of the University Act is a legacy of a former Liberal, a former Social Credit member of this chamber and a former minister of advanced education, Pat McGeer. Dr. McGeer, a noted university scholar, served in some ways with distinction in his role as minister of advanced education in this province. Indeed, he contributed many positive things to post-secondary education in British Columbia. But in this section and in similar sections that he sought at one time to incorporate into the College and Institute Act, Dr. McGeer did a gross disservice to employees of this province's colleges and universities. In doing so, I believe he attempted to incorporate in legislation his own biases about unionization of professionals in the academic field. Section 80 was introduced shortly after an unsuccessful attempt to unionize faculty at the University of British Columbia. Dr. McGeer's response to that was to not oppose the next attempt at unionization but to seek to incorporate in legislation a ban on the next attempt to unionize. I believe that that was an inappropriate act at the time -- indeed, an abuse of the power of this Legislature and this province.
I'm very pleased to see this government and this minister bringing in legislation to repeal what I believe has been a black mark on legislation governing colleges and universities in this province.
A. Cowie: I'd like to speak very briefly regarding Bill 23, because my colleague from West Vancouver-Garibaldi has covered the matter very well -- although I agree with the last speaker on some of the issues that he has brought forward.
First of all, regarding the ability to grant associate degrees, I agree with that wholeheartedly. In Britain it's a very good way for engineers, as an example, to get a toehold in the profession and then move on fully into the profession if they want to. My concern is that the quality of that two-year course -- or whatever it's going to be -- be high and such that it is transferable. I think that's very important. It would be great if it were not only transferable to other colleges and universities within this province, but even to other countries. A daughter of mine, for example, took a course in Australia and was able to transfer only part of it here. It would be great if we looked at those sorts of standards and agreed on common standards. I agree with that concern wholeheartedly, and I hope we get on with it right away.
I'm going to talk very specifically about section 80, on the repeal provision which would allow professors and other professionals at the universities to have unions. I believe in choice, and I don't think that if
[ Page 1133 ]
unions took place it would be all that bad. But my concern is that if you're a true professional you don't need a union. Doctors, engineers, architects -- certain professions -- don't usually have unions. In fact, it would be a conflict for them to have a union, because they have associations and organizations and organizations that work very well on their behalf. I don't think it's necessary.
So my concern would be, just as in the municipalities.... I might speak briefly, since the minister is here. Take planners, for example, whom we both know about. You get professionals with very good qualifications -- some with master's and PhDs -- and at certain municipal levels they are required to belong to a union. That's absolutely ridiculous, in my opinion.
Interjection.
A. Cowie: No, they have to belong to the union at a certain level, unless they have an administrative responsibility. For someone in the municipalities earning the amount of money they do, I think it really stifles the professional side of their careers.
That would be my main concern: if a union is formed at the universities -- and I don't think it's necessary -- the professors in various departments, such as sociology, anthropology, etc., would be coerced by a very small number of professors to join the union. If they didn't join, then there would be repercussions.
I think we're quite well served -- whether we adopt this repealing provision or not -- by the associations and organizations. I hope, personally, that that's the way professionals at our universities see it.
[11:30]
P. Dueck: Mr. Speaker, I would like to stand in my place and wholeheartedly support the associate degrees. It has been covered quite extensively, so no more needs to be said on that.
As far as section 80 is concerned, I believe there are many areas in our society today that we should perhaps legislate as being services that are a must or are required. Perhaps that should cover the teaching profession, not just in universities but in the hospitals and many others. But to leave in this section, and to discriminate against college and university professors, I think is discrimination. Therefore I would support taking this out of the current legislation, because I feel it is zeroing in on a particular segment or on certain members of society, whereas in other areas we do not discriminate.
By saying that, I do not wish anyone to misunderstand. I think that in universities, schools and hospitals, we should have legislation that they cannot strike because they are necessary services. We're holding students at risk. We're really not doing a service to people where we should be.
Having said that, I think it's discriminatory to zero in on college and university professors. Therefore I would support this legislation.
Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. G. Clark: I have the privilege of introducing in the precincts today representatives of the Greek community of east Vancouver: Alex Tsoukalas, Peter Piliotis and Mr. Tsirigotis. I would ask all members to make them welcome.
J. Dalton: We've had a long array of speakers, which I think is appropriate for this important legislation. I'm going to make a few comments in a moment from a personal perspective, because I have been in the college system for many years.
However, before I get to that, I think it's of interest that most speakers have approached this on a twofold basis. In fact, our lead speaker, the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, suggested -- and I think it's appropriate -- that we treat this legislation in two aspects. One is the granting of associate degrees, which everyone has spoken in favour of; certainly I do so, and I will start with that. In fact, I can hear the thunderous applause I assume coming from my college, Langara, where we have advocated this, spoken in favour of it, and pushed for it for many years. I'm sure the member for Prince George North, who spoke previously, will support those observations.
However, even though I certainly fully support the capability of colleges to be in a degree-granting situation with associate degrees, there are some difficulties with other aspects of this legislation. I'm not the only one who has some reservations -- because others have expressed them -- about section 80 and the implications of allowing university faculty associations to associate into unions if they so wish.
Before I get into any other remarks, I would say that I am not opposed to unionization. In fact, I should now give a brief history of my professional career in the post-secondary education field. For many years I was an instructor at Langara college -- as we fondly called it, although appropriately it's the Langara campus of Vancouver Community College; perhaps that is another issue for another day that the Minister of Advanced Education and I might get into, but we'll leave that for estimates. When I think back to my first rather inauspicious week at Langara in the fall of 1974 as I encountered the picket lines, I thought that this was a very strange introduction to the college system, to actually be faced with the situation: should I or should I not cross the picket line? It was not a picket line of my own faculty association; it was a picket line put up by the other faculty association of Vancouver Community College. I should explain the way the college is structured. There are actually two faculty associations, both of which are unions, at Vancouver Community College. The other union, representing the King Edward and Vancouver Vocational Institute campuses, were on strike. They also put picket lines around the Langara campus. That was my rather interesting initial exposure to the post-secondary system.
[ Page 1134 ]
I did join the faculty association at Langara, which was unionized at that time; I did so with no hesitation. There was no obligation to be a member of the union. There were only about two people that I can recall over the years who elected, for various reasons, not to be a member of that union. I have no personal quarrel with unionization in post-secondary faculty associations.
However, there are some unanswered questions, and I want to address those briefly. Firstly, should we not give some further and serious thought to the potential of designating post-secondary education -- I include both colleges and universities in these remarks, at least to be considered -- as essential services? For example, the very recent disruption at the University of B.C. campus. The picket lines around the campus, of course, were not faculty picket lines, because they are not yet unionized, if they could be. Some professors chose to cross those picket lines; others did not. But there was certainly a lot of disruption at the UBC campus. The potential for many thousands of students to lose an entire academic year was a reality. Happily, that was avoided.
I'm not saying that if faculty associations at the university level can unionize, they would automatically do so and would withdraw services if they got into that situation -- which, of course, would be their right. But I do think that we have to give more time to reflect on the implications of that very important aspect of post-secondary education.
I can tell this House, Mr. Speaker, that I personally had a lot of reservations two or three times during my years at Langara about picket lines and whether I should do my performance as a faculty member and deliver the education to the students who have paid for it and deserve it. That did not mean that I would not honour picket lines; in fact, I did over the years. Happily we had only two or three, as I recall. I did honour those picket lines, but I can tell you that I and many other faculty members did so with great reluctance. It was not an easy choice, by any stretch. I'm sure the university professors at UBC agonized over that same difficulty when they faced picket lines recently. I think we should have some opportunity to revisit that aspect.
The other argument I would add is dealing with -- and other speakers have referred to this -- the Labour Relations Review Panel, which is now going around the province conducting extensive reviews of industrial relations. I think there should be a further opportunity, in light of the recommendations that will be coming from that review panel, to discuss whether there will be some implications in the repeal of section 80 of this statute. Universities -- in a general sense, I have no quarrel with it -- should be allowed to associate in any way they wish, whether that be a professional association, a union or as they choose. However, in the light of the review panel that is now being conducted, I think it would be appropriate that further reconsideration of that aspect be dealt with by this House as we consider this bill.
I would add just one suggestion if there is a possibility of delay. Perhaps we could submit this issue to the Select Standing Committee on Education, and allow it, with the luxury of more time, to examine all the implications of repealing section 80.
In a moment I'm going to propose an amendment to this bill. But before I get to that, I want to make it quite clear to all -- I hope my previous comments have done this, but I want to restate it -- that I personally do not oppose the opportunity for faculty associations to unionize. I would be inconsistent if I said that, because as I've already told the House, for many years I was a member of a faculty union. I have no quarrel with that.
But in light of these unanswered questions, I am going to propose an amendment. I move that the motion for second reading of Bill 23 be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting therefor the phrase, "six months hence."
H. De Jong: I'm pleased to second the amendment.
On the amendment.
Hon. T. Perry: I think it goes without saying that the government will oppose the amendment. We would not have brought forward second reading this morning and wasted hon. members' time by initiating debate if we intended to delay six months. I suggest that we get on with a vote. It's unlikely that the House will approve the amendment.
D. Mitchell: Speaking on the amendment, I'm disappointed that the minister won't take this amendment more seriously. It was not moved frivolously. There are some concerns with this bill and with the timing of it. We've indicated in our comments up to this point in debate on second reading that we have no difficulty with the general principle of this double-barrelled bill. It really is a double-barrelled bill, because it's doing two completely different things.
It would have been much preferable if we had had two separate pieces of legislation, because we could have passed half of it now and delayed the other half. It's not because we're opposed to it; we're in general agreement with the principle of the bill. But it's the timing that's curious. That's why the amendment was moved, and that's why we must support this amendment.
The amendment is asking that the bill not be read a second time now and not be approved in principle now, but that it be delayed for six months. There's a reason for that, and the reason is that there is currently a process ongoing in this province, which has very recently been initiated by the minister's colleague the Minister of Labour. It's a review of the Industrial Relations Act of this province. That's a good process, and it's one that we support, because it's timely. We should take a look at the labour laws of the province. We should take a look at the labour tribunal to see if it's functioning properly. We support that. Why, then, is this amendment to the University Act being brought in in advance of that when we don't know what impact or what amendments are going to be brought in as a consequence of this review? That's our concern. That's
[ Page 1135 ]
why this bill should be delayed for six months: so we can wait and see.
What we are particularly interested in seeing with this Industrial Relations Act review is how the essential-services provisions of that act are going to be dealt with. Are they going to remain intact? Are they going to be amended in some form? Are they going to be repealed? We don't know.
One of the provisions under the essential-services section of the current Industrial Relations Act deals with universities and the provision of educational services. It allows the government -- through the Minister of Labour, but perhaps on the advice of the Minister of Advanced Education -- to declare a university, college or institute an essential service if the provision of educational services is threatened. If valuable training and student education in the province is threatened, under that section of the act the minister currently has the power to act. We don't know if that section is going to be enforced anymore after this review. We don't know if new sections are going to be brought in that will have an impact on universities and colleges. We don't know that.
Why now? Why the hurry? Those are the questions that we must ask. Why the hurry to bring this in at this time? Why not leave it until later in the session? Why not wait and get a sense of it, so faculty associations, university administrators and students can engage in this consultation process that has been initiated? From my discussions with those groups, I believe that they intend to. They are going to be part of the broad-based public consultation process that has been initiated. They're going to be bringing representation forward on a number of issues relating to industrial relations and how they impact on the provision of educational services, whether or not the withdrawal of support staff and faculty services have a negative impact on education and whether or not there is a role for industrial relations to take precedence over the provision of educational services. These are questions that must be addressed.
[11:45]
The member for Prince George North, in debate on second reading of this bill, made some excellent points, but one thing he didn't address.... He was exaggerating some of the comments we made. While we are raising concerns, we are not opposing this bill. It's important for the member for Prince George North to understand that we do not oppose the underlying principle of this double-barrelled bill, whether it's dealing with the provision of associate degrees -- we think it's a good move; we raise some concerns, but we support it -- or the elimination of section 80 of the University Act. We don't oppose that either; we agree that the section should be removed. But there's a question of timing.
There is no hurry on this. We've lived with it for a few years; it's not the end of the world. We're not going to have chaos in the post-secondary educational system. It's not that at all. But wouldn't it be interesting to know what the priorities of this government really are?
The member for Prince George North asks what the priorities of the opposition are. I'll tell you what our priorities are. The priority is that the public should be consulted before any major statutory change to the labour laws of our province takes place. I think we have to see this amendment in that context.
Where is this government going? What are the priorities of this government? I would encourage the member for Prince George North to get up and speak on this amendment, to address this issue specifically and hopefully to support the notion that perhaps this bill should be delayed for six months. There's nothing wrong with delaying this bill for six months. The world will not end. British Columbia will not fall into the ocean. But we will have a chance to see where the broad-based consultation process initiated by this government is going. We will get a chance to see where British Columbians want it to go, and in particular, we'll get a chance to see where representatives of the advanced education community -- faculty associations, administration, students -- feel changes should take place with respect to the labour laws governing the provision of educational services in our province.
That's the reason we should give some consideration to this amendment. If there is no hurry, if there is no reason to proceed now, I think we should give serious consideration to approving this amendment and delaying the bill for six months. There's no reason why we can't. The minister has continued to not address this issue. He got up to speak on the amendment simply by saying that they reject it. Why doesn't the government take this issue seriously? They simply want to bring a bill in, and they hope the opposition will support them. And if we don't, they don't really care.
We've raised some legitimate concerns on this bill. We've indicated that we support the underlying principle of the bill, but we've raised some legitimate concerns. The government hasn't addressed them. The minister got up to speak to the amendment; he didn't address the concerns. How can we go on now? I encourage members on the government side to speak to the amendment.
There's no reason why a delay of six months would affect the world in such a way that it would have any negative impact whatsoever. The bill can still proceed at the next session if we so wish. The government could reintroduce the bill at the next session, and by that time....
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: The minister wants to know if he can speak again to the amendment. Unfortunately, he can't, but I would encourage him to consult with some of his colleagues and encourage them to speak to this. The minister, unfortunately, has already spoken on this.
Mr. Speaker, if this bill was to be brought in in the next session of this parliament, after some of these concerns have been addressed, after the Industrial Relations Act review has completed its work and made its recommendations so that members of this House would understand the direction that this government wants to go in -- after public consultation has taken place, not before -- then I think we could support that
[ Page 1136 ]
and would give a commitment today to support the bill, given that public consultation. It hasn't taken place.
We've experienced a pattern of action with this new government. Do you know what it is, Mr. Speaker? They shoot first and aim later. That's what they do. They take actions, announce decisions and then say: "Oh, now we're going to consult, after we've decided what we're going to do."
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: Just like Horseshoe Bay and the ferries, as the Minister of Finance points out so correctly. I couldn't agree with him more. The minister points out one of many examples. He decides on all-night sailings of ferries, and now he's going to consult. I'm not going to deal with that, Mr. Speaker, because that's another matter -- so I'm going to go back to the bill now. If the Minister of Finance will allow me, I'd like to return to the amendment, in particular, to this bill.
The amendment says that this bill should be delayed for six months. It's a good amendment, and I know that other members would like to speak to it. I would encourage them to, and I would encourage them to support the amendment.
Hon. A. Edwards: It's certainly a pleasure to get up and speak to the amendment, because what the opposition seems to be saying is that we need now to refer this to a study group, a task force that is dealing with an issue that is really a policy change, if you like. What is proposed in this bill, basically, is something that was an oversight. We are according to a group a right that their peers have. Basically, what we're doing is not disrupting any policy situation that's there. There is nothing changed in the whole situation within British Columbia, except an oversight that we have been discussing for years and years in this province, and over which we've had loads of consultation.
The indications, from the debate that's gone on over on the other side, are that they have also been discussing this for quite some time and that there's been a lot of consultation. It's been very clear that this right should be accorded to this group. It is a right that has not been accorded, for reasons that have never been clearly put forward. This government promised to redress that situation, and this is how we will redress it. Any suggestion that we should wait around for a task force to report on a change in process for labour legislation is simply not on point. What we really want to do is ensure that this group gets put in with the rest of the people who are able and allowed to organize as a labour union. I would suggest that there is no reason and no substance to the motion that we delay this bill.
P. Ramsey: I'd like to second the comments of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and just put this in a slightly different context. I think there's a fundamental distinction here: it's between rights and regulation of those rights. What we are dealing with in this proposed amendment is the basic right of a group of employees to seek whatever form of association they wish in conducting labour relations with their employers. That's what this amendment, this repeal of section 80, provides.
Let's put it in context here. If you're a school teacher in this province, in the kindergarten through grade 12 system, you have the right to unionize or not unionize, whether you teach in a private school or in a public school. If you're a college instructor or an instructor in an educational institute in this province, you have the right to unionize or not unionize, whether you teach at a private college or a public college. But if you're a university professor in this province you have a right to unionize -- believe it or not -- if you teach for a private university, but not if you teach for a public university.
I say that it is time we amend this act and provide the same rights to all. The member says that somehow we should delay until the commission charged with examining the Industrial Relations Act reports. I suggest that what we're looking at, of course, is how we regulate that right under the Industrial Relations Act. Indeed, there will be ample opportunity in this House, when those amendments are brought down, to consider provisions for certification, bargaining provisions, essential services and dispute resolution. I suggest to the members opposite that that is indeed an appropriate forum for debating how that right is to be regulated.
I cannot perceive any reason why we should delay any longer the provision of the right to decide on what form of association or unionization that group of employees wants. Therefore I think the delay would be unconscionable, and I urge the defeat of this amendment.
L. Reid: The issue before us is not the two items in this bill, it's not the ability to form a union in this province and it's not the issuance of two-year associate degrees. The issue is process, and I am absolutely committed to process in this House. "NDP" in this province should not mean "No Due Process." I believe that we are on the verge of a study on advanced education. I believe that we're going to be looking at all of these issues in more detail. To put the cart before the horse is not making tremendous sense to me.
I have stood in this House repeatedly and asked for consultation and dialogue. Yesterday this government ran ads that said: "Balance. Fairness. Let's take a look at the issues. Let's hear what the public has to say." If that is going to be an approach that's considered appropriate for one aspect of legislative packages, for one aspect of this government's mandate, it needs to be consistent. My greatest difficulty with this government is the lack of consistency, a lack of regard. I see no problem with taking a serious look at these issues over the next six months, hearing what's going to happen in the area of advanced education, because there are going to be some exciting things coming down. To coordinate that, to have a consistent package come forward, makes tremendous sense: time for dialogue, time for consultation. Speaking in favour of my colleagues and the amendment, it is time to take a look at this issue in more detail; we have not done that consistently.
[ Page 1137 ]
I have absolutely no opposition to the intent of this bill. I do not believe the intent of this bill will be weakened because we take six months to have a serious look at it. That is the prudent thing to do; it's the sensible thing to do. I would hope that my colleagues across the floor will see that this does not require urgency; none of these are earth-shattering in any way, shape or form. It's time to take a serious look at it. It's time to tell British Columbians that this government is committed to consultation; it's committed to dialogue. This would be a fabulous example for you to go forward on.
I would suggest, given the hour of the day, that we adjourn and resume debate later on this afternoon.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:58 am.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada