Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1992

Volume 6, Number 15

[ Page 4095 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

E. Barnes: In the members' gallery this afternoon are two people whom I'd like the House to join me in making welcome: Paul Gill and his cousin from India, Tony Gill, who is a landed immigrant and hopes to become a Canadian soon.

R. Chisholm: With us today we have David Hobson and a group from the tree fruit growers of the Okanagan. I wish that the Legislature would make them most welcome.

R. Kasper: Today in the gallery we have 13 students visiting from the Voyageur program from Montreal. They are accompanied by chaperons Earl Toohey, Val Bennett and Steve Fader. Bienvenu � Colombie Britannique. Will the House please make them welcome.

W. Hurd: In the precincts today is Mr. John Leech, the executive director of the applied science and technology group of British Columbia and also a constituent of Surrey-White Rock. Would the House please make him welcome.

Oral Questions

TREASURY BOARD DIRECTIVE
ON NEW SOURCES OF REVENUE

G. Wilson: A question today to the Premier. A week or so ago the Premier said that under his guidance and direction his Finance minister had plunged into record deficits. We noticed yesterday that he has now established a vigilante tax collection system by deputizing all of his ministers to go out and find new ways of gouging and taxing the people of British Columbia. Could the Premier tell us if this vigilante tax collection system, admitted to by his minister today, is more of the guidance and direction from the first minister of this government?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition has just entered his sophomore year in here, but he should know that these are the instructions that are traditionally issued to the ministries every year, whatever the government is.

G. Wilson: Perhaps the first minister is not aware of the press release put out today by the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations which essentially acknowledges that the question raised by our Finance critic yesterday is true: there are going to be enhanced cost recovery measures which will request additional funding and implementation to assist ministries becoming, essentially, vigilante tax collectors. Can the Premier tell us if this system of tax collection is the way he thinks British Columbians can be fairly treated in terms of budgetary process?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I can see that this is don't-collect-tax day for the opposition. The last few days it's been spend, spend, spend. I wish they'd make up their minds.

G. Wilson: It's interesting that the side opposite says it has to keep tabs on the Liberals. We on this side have to keep tabs as to whether or not it's blame-the-Socreds day, blame-Mazankowski day or blame-poor-research day.

We have now established a new system of tax collection which rewards ministers for finding new and improved ways to gouge the people of British Columbia. Can the Premier tell us if this is an acceptable policy and the way that we should be generating tax revenues and service fees?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I want to make the point that the budget instructions on the revenue side are exactly the same as the budget instructions each and every year. In government we manage to review all our revenue sources. That's prudent, that's rational, and it makes sense.

However, this year, unlike past years, we have a very tough expenditure cap so that ministries cannot ask for hundreds of millions dollars more in new program initiatives. As a result of that cap, in order to assure a full and rational review of fees and licences, we said incremental revenue generated by them will increase the cap by 25 percent of that incremental amount. It does not mean that ministries will receive that; it simply means that they can request up to 25 percent before the budget process.

I also want to make it clear that in this rational review it's possible for fees to go down as well as up.

As part of the budget instructions we're applying two principles. One is cost recovery for fees and licences, as well as trying to keep pace with inflation. So this is a rational process we're following. It's consistent with past practice in this House, only this year we have very tough spending caps in order to try to meet our very difficult expenditure targets.

B.C. FERRIES UNION CONTRACT

J. Weisgerber: A question to the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries. B.C. Ferries is negotiating a new union contract. Has the minister calculated the cost to B.C. Ferries of allowing or awarding a settlement equal to the BCGEU 6 percent settlement, and has he calculated the ferry rate increase that would be necessary to cover those costs?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, it's important to remember that the Ferry Corporation, as a commercial Crown corporation, is responsible for collective bargaining. I have full faith in the corporation and their management to do that. Frankly, I am very optimistic that the parties can work together to solve this without further disruption.

[ Page 4096 ]

With respect to wage increases, I want to correct the member again on his misinformation. In the current fiscal year, the wage settlement cost to the government for the BCGEU was 2 percent. It is that fiscal year which we are operating on with respect to the B.C. Ferries negotiations. I have full confidence in their abilities to reach an agreement, a consensus, and sign a collective agreement.

B.C. FERRIES LABOUR DISPUTE

J. Weisgerber: A new question to the same minister. The minister has indicated that the government intends to sue the ferry workers for costs and damages associated with the illegal work stoppage. Ferry workers held travellers to ransom yesterday. Will the government or B.C. Ferries sue on behalf of those individuals for their costs and damages?

Hon. G. Clark: No, the member is incorrect. The Ferry Corporation handles this question, but obviously, on an issue like this, in consultation with the minister. I am supportive of the Ferry Corporation's application to the Industrial Relations Council for leave to sue for damages. There is another remedy available to the corporation if they choose to exercise it, and that is through the grievance procedure. They could file a grievance against the union.

Individuals who feel that there are damages have been contacted by the Ferry Corporation. The Ferry Corporation, through their legal counsel, are doing the appropriate thing and reviewing all legal remedies available to them, as part of the normal course of doing business. I support the corporation in their efforts.

J. Weisgerber: If I'm clear.... If the government or B.C. Ferries are successful in suing the ferry workers, will there then be an offer made to refund at least ticket holders for their out-of-pocket expenses associated with this work stoppage?

Hon. G. Clark: I think you're asking a legal question, which I'm not equipped to answer. First of all, it's important to get the sequence of events. As I understand it, the corporation has asked the Industrial Relations Council for leave to sue. They will hear that on Friday. If they are successful in their application and are granted leave to sue, then, of course, the lawyers for the corporation will review what is then possible and what makes the most sense.

It's important, in the broader labour relations context, that the Ferry Corporation and the union work together to resolve conflicts through the legal processes and the collective bargaining process, so that we can get this unfortunate incident behind us, sign a collective agreement and move forward with positive industrial relations at the Ferry Corporation.

[2:15]

TREASURY BOARD DIRECTIVE
ON NEW SOURCES OF REVENUE

F. Gingell: I was very pleased to read this morning's press release from the Minister of Finance and to hear his answer just now. I realize that our only difference is in terminology. I would like him to know that what he calls cost recovery measures, the rest of the world calls taxes, fees and licences. When the Minister of Finance was the member for Vancouver East, he stated in this House on June 11, 1991, that the previous administration had a record deficit of $2.4 billion, instead of the $1.2 billion that their budget showed. Given this starting point, we all fail to understand why the minister did not impose tough budget caps for this year. Can the minister please tell us how much he hopes to raise from these new vigilante taxes, fees and licences?

Hon. G. Clark: We did impose tough spending guidelines, and every day in the House members of the opposition demand that we spend more. We cut the rate of government spending in half from the previous Social Credit administration; it is half the rate of the last three years. We have had 12 percent increases in spending for three years, until our first budget, when we cut it to 6.7 percent. Obviously we have to do better as we move forward in trying to invest in our future British Columbia and in the education of our children. But at the same time we must restrain the rate of growth in spending.

Hon. Speaker, I want to clarify the record for the member. It is correct that there are some 700 fees and licences, with some several hundred increased and imposed by the previous administration. We are reviewing fees and licences. We have not increased them. We are putting them on a rational basis. I also want to make it clear to the member, because he made this point in his question, that the definition of cost recovery is this: we want to ensure that the charge for a fee or a licence covers the cost of issuing that licence. There is no surplus that goes into general revenue; that's cost recovery. If there is a surplus, we'll deal with it in this review.

F. Gingell: I would be most interested to know if the Minister of Finance also plans some bounty-type arrangement on reducing staffing costs. Will there be some kind of plan whereby if any government bureaucrats fire three employees, they'll get to keep their own job?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm not sure if that was a serious suggestion or not, hon. Speaker. I think it's important in the public service that we do get a more rational approach to expenditures and revenue. I give you an example. In some cases, in the hospital system, if they save money the government takes that money away. So you have an incentive for hospitals, or other forms of government agents, to spend all the money allocated to them. What we need to do is create a better model where there is in fact an incentive for efficiency gains in the public sector, an incentive for productivity gains. We're open to all suggestions to try to do that.

[ Page 4097 ]

PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS

P. Dueck: My question was to the Minister of Health, but I'll direct it right to the top: the Premier. One of the most loyal, competent and apolitical senior civil servants has been fired. Although Dr. Henderson was one of the province's most efficient civil servants, he has been replaced by one who is, shall we say, more in tune with the political philosophy of this government. Will the Premier tell the House how much it will cost the taxpayers for the severance pay, and for the additional annual salary that this new person will receive?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I will take that question on notice and get that information back to the member.

An Hon. Member: Would you say he was culled out?

The Speaker: Hon. member, there is no supplemental to a question taken on notice. Do you have a new question?

P. Dueck: Will the Premier please tell the House when these blatant patronage appointments will finally come to an end?

COST OF RENOVATIONS
TO NDP CAUCUS OFFICES

W. Hurd: Recently in this House the Minister of Finance assured us that no stone would be left unturned in the quest to bring spending under control. In recognition of this remarkable statement by the spendthrift Minister of Finance, I have a question for the Minister of Government Services. Yesterday on TV, viewers were shown some minor refurbishing needed on a ceiling at the Langara campus. This side of the House can certainly understand that those costs can't be met by the government. But my question is about remodelling of a different sort, and it's in the caucus offices of the NDP. Could the minister advise us how much was spent on refurbishing the offices in this very building?

Hon. L. Boone: This certainly is urgent after a whole year's time. This is not in my area, but I would be more than happy to get that information from the Speaker's office. I had that information handy all of last year, waiting for someone over there to ask me, and nobody did. But I would be more than happy to get that information for you, as we have nothing to hide in this government.

W. Hurd: I have a slightly smaller stone for the Minister of Government Services. Perhaps she could tell us the cost of the handcrafted, custom-built table in the caucus room for the 51 members of the NDP caucus.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The House will come to order.

The bell signals the end of question period.

Hon. A. Charbonneau tabled the report from the standards review committee on the Ministry of Transportation and Highways inland ferries.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: Committee stage of Bill 84.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 84; E. Barnes in the chair.

On section 3.

G. Farrell-Collins: With regard to section 3, I would like to move the amendment in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 3, is amended to read:

3. (1) The minister shall, on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly, appoint a committee of special advisors to undertake a continuing review of this Code and labour management relations and, without limitation, to

(a) provide the Legislative Assembly with an annual evaluation of the manner in which the legislation is functioning and to identify problems that may have arisen under its provisions,

(b) make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly concerning the need for amendments to the legislation, and

(c) make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly on any specific matter referred to the committee by the minister.

(2) The Legislative Assembly shall not recommend the persons to be appointed by the Minister hereunder unless a committee of the Legislative Assembly has unanimously recommended to the Minister that the persons be so appointed.]

On the amendment.

G. Farrell-Collins: The amendment to section 3 of Bill 84 is one that we feel is quite significant. It does a number of things. The most important thing it does is ensure that the minister -- "may," according to Bill 84, and according to our amendment, that has been changed to "shall" -- shall appoint a committee to oversee ongoing changes as Bill 84 goes on and to study the implementation and effects of the bill. The minister has made comments numerous times in the House that it's essential that we have an ongoing look at this bill to ensure that if there are any adverse or unintended effects, those will be taken into consideration and dealt with in a fair manner. We'll perhaps bring forth further amendments to Bill 84 to ensure that the unintended effects that the minister talks about do not occur.

By bringing in this amendment, we've made the system by which that committee is appointed and by which it reports to this House much fairer, much more 

[ Page 4098 ]

open and much more conducive to building confidence in the collective bargaining process in labour relations in British Columbia. Essentially what we have done is use very similar wording to what already exists in the act to establish an ombudsman in the province. The wording is very similar, and the intent is virtually identical.

The idea behind that, of course, is, given that labour legislation in this province is of such significance and one of the key pillars of an industrial strategy, and given that both the Premier and the Minister of Labour have stated that numerous times in the last few weeks, we want to ensure that we instil the confidence of the general public in the process and the review process as they relate to Bill 84, in the amendments that have been made so far and in the amendments that may be recommended in the future.

The changes are to ensure that the committee is appointed from all the members of the House and that all members, all parties, have a say in who those people are going to be, who we are going to go through or who is going to sit on that committee; and also to ensure that the committee reports to the whole House and not just to the minister.

There are two important factors there. The first one is that all members of the House will be involved in choosing the committee. That is a way to ensure that the full House has confidence in the members of the committee, and that the full House will give very serious consideration to the recommendations that the committee brings forward.

When we chose an ombuds in this province -- an exercise that we have just gone through -- the Legislature delegated the responsibility to make that decision to a select standing committee. Our opinion is that section 3 would operate so that the standing committee responsible for labour would be responsible for selecting the members of that panel and for interviewing and recruiting prominent, top-notch, high-quality people from all sides of the labour relations community in order to ensure that it is fair and balanced in the minds of not just the minister or a member of his cabinet or his caucus, but in the minds of all parties in the Legislature, including the independent member if he chose to sit on that committee, and that everybody would buy in and put their trust in that committee. I think that is critical.

The other aspect we are looking at is the reporting procedure. We had a case in the last round of amendments that the minister brought before us in the form of Bill 84, where the minister received a report on September 11 and it was kept secret from the rest of the labour relations community, with the exception of a few people the minister chose to confide in before he brought it to the Legislature or the public had a chance to look at it. I think that is unfortunate.

I think that this type of report and these ongoing recommendations for labour relations, in order to instil confidence among the general public in both labour and management in the province, must be an open process. It must be extremely open. We must not have the scenario we saw in the last while, where this document was kept secret and people didn't know until the last minute what the recommendations were. It's important that that be as public as possible. It's important that people be allowed to discuss it and buy into it or object to it as soon as possible, so that we don't end up in the situation we're in now, where the bill is tabled the same day the report is released, and we're immediately in a full-fledged debate in the House before we've had a chance to consult with the players, the stakeholders and the general public as to what the effects on them may be.

[2:30]

So the idea of having that person or that panel report to the Legislature as a whole, similar to what's done with the ombudsman, is a very progressive move in labour relations. It's something that I know the New Democratic caucus certainly supports as far as it relates to the position of an ombudsman. It would be very advantageous to use the precedent that has already been established for ombudsmen and bring that type of process into the House, which would ensure that fairness is seen to be done. It's an open process that would instil confidence instead of suspicion in the minds of the public.

Hon. M. Sihota: In response to the hon. member, let me make a number of comments. First of all, let me say this: my neck is a lot better, so I can look at him better than I could yesterday. I'm sure that will give him as much comfort as it gives me -- perhaps even more.

I want to start by dealing with the section on which the hon. member has now prepared an amendment. I want to deal with the provisions that he's put forward, and I do wish to congratulate him on the fact that he's managed to put forward some creativity in the amendment.

This section is very important. It provides for a continuing review of the code, and it is essential that there be a provision in the Labour Relations Code that recognizes that this is a dynamic piece of legislation that changes with our economy and with the times. It provides a vehicle for ministers and the Legislature to have an idea of future changes as well as some opportunity to have input into future changes. It's important that we are able to deal with the consequences of legislation to reflect changing times and that legislation not be frozen in time. Clearly this provision does this. It provides us with the opportunity to appoint special advisers, much as we have done in the preparation of this legislation, to undertake a continuing review of the code when the times require it.

I can assure the hon. member that the pressures of the day are such that some would argue that the time to trigger those provisions is already here. Others would argue that we should provide some time for the code to do its thing and see how the world unfolds before we take action. In any event, that will be a bridge that we will have to cross later on.

However, the hon. member knows full well that government governs. Ministers have responsibilities in terms of governance, and therefore it's not unusual to have provisions in legislation that give a minister the power to appoint a committee to look at issues. There are a number of other areas in this legislation that give ministers certain discretion.

[ Page 4099 ]

In addition, it should also be noted that governments are not immune to representations made by the opposition or other members of this House. Most of us in this chamber take our responsibilities seriously, and when there's a compelling and logical argument put forward by the opposition, we react to it. It's important that that occur. I need only reflect on my own personal experience when I was in opposition. I recollect that one of the first pieces of legislation that I had to deal with as a new member to this House was the Expropriation Act. During the course of the debate -- much like this -- I suggested to the then Attorney General, Brian Smith, that there needed to be some changes to that legislation. He accepted the argument that we put forward, and he made those changes. So let us not overlook the impact that debate can have.

Quite frankly, with regard to the amendment, there already is an opportunity under these provisions for the Legislative Assembly to place the appropriate pressures on government that trigger the provisions necessary to appoint the committee of special advisers. That's how our democratic system works, and that's how a democratic system should work. Given his experience already in this House, the hon. member knows full well that there are instruments of pressure that can be applied both in and out of this House to bring about changes to legislation. He knows full well that we're always open to considering those. In addition to that, he knows -- just looking at his amendment -- that ministers make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly concerning the need to make amendments to legislation. It is currently the responsibility of the minister to come before this House and recommend amendments to legislation when those are warranted. Therefore the second item in this amendment is, quite frankly, unnecessary, given that it is this chamber that makes amendments to legislation that's before the House.

Dealing with the third matter the hon. member raises, I don't underestimate the ability of the hon. member opposite and the Labour critic for the third party to make recommendations to the minister -- me in this instance -- on any specific matters that should be referred to the committee for review. Clearly, if they make a compelling, logical and rational case, they will have the weight of public opinion behind them. That weight will usually -- and indeed should -- get a minister to act.

I think that the kinds of checks and balances that exist under our prevailing parliamentary system, which has served our Commonwealth for the better part of 400 years, are both....

I'm sorry to wake up the member for Saanich.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member says he can't believe what he's hearing.

I'm just saying that I'm not underestimating the ability of the opposition to put pressure on a government. Indeed, we've seen lots of opportunities where they've done that.

The hon. member wants to know what the.... I'm sorry -- I really did wake you up, didn't I?

With regard to the Commonwealth, the point I was trying to make is that this parliamentary system has worked rather well as the system of government in our Commonwealth. It has been demonstrated that the opposition can raise matters over and over again in the Legislative Assembly, and inevitably governments do react. With that said, I don't think it's necessary to proceed with the amendment. I think the provisions that are before the Legislature right now, in the form of the legislation we're debating, accurately and amply attend to the situation at hand.

Let's not confuse this with the power of the ombudsman. The ombuds office has the ability to look at a number of responsibilities of government. It takes a look at all activities of government, not just the provisions of one specific piece of legislation. I think there is a subtle but significant difference in that instance from what is being proposed here.

G. Farrell-Collins: First of all, I'd like to thank the minister for his better tone. I assume he's in a better mood today because his neck is feeling better. I hope he had a good night's sleep. Usually the minister stands up and insults the opposition for being ineffective. It's nice to hear the minister congratulate us for being effective and not underestimate our effectiveness. I'd like to thank the minister for that.

The minister's comments that this system -- the minister having the power to do these sorts of things -- has been around for 400 years. He uses a time which I think is perhaps a little longer than what it is in reality. But that's neither here nor there. The fact is that our parliamentary process, I hope, is undergoing constant reform and improvement. Ombudsmen didn't exist 400 years ago. I understand the powers of the ombudsman are much broader. We certainly supported that either the present ombudsman or a specific labour ombudsman be included in labour relations issues, and we brought that forward. It seems the minister doesn't agree with that either.

With this amendment to the bill we are trying to ensure a process that this minister campaigned on actively for the last five years while he was in opposition and right up to the last election: that the government needed to be more open, and that people needed to understand and see the intricate workings of government more readily. I agree with him 100 percent on that. What we are trying to do with this amendment is ensure that those amendments that may or may not come along, as Bill 84 is enacted, as it works through the system, as time goes by and the jurisprudence on Bill 84 develops.... If there are problems with it -- if it needs fine-tuning, when it needs fine-tuning, when it needs major tuning -- those changes and recommendations should be done in a more open process than there was in the development of the recommendations that went into Bill 84.

We had that lengthy debate in second reading, where we advocated that the government had done part of the open process until September 11. Then, by not releasing that report and giving people a chance to 

[ Page 4100 ]

comment on it -- either just informally or in a discussion paper, White Paper or by referral to a standing committee -- the minister perhaps did half a job of consultation. The first half was good, but there was a second part that needed to take place.

What we're trying to do with this amendment to the legislation is, first of all, establish the fact that those parties appointed to sit on this review panel are parties agreed to openly among all members of this House. All the representatives of the constituents of British Columbia will come to some unanimous decision as to who should be on that panel. That in itself would ensure that we don't go through the process we did on Bill 84, where the small and medium-sized business community feels that they were underrepresented on the panel.

We would ensure that that didn't happen, and that this review panel was able to readily balance all 75 constituencies in the province and all the various people who would have concerns and interests as to amendments and future amendments to the labour legislation. We'd get off to a good start right away, because everybody would have bought into that process. Everybody would have agreed unanimously through the labour committee. Each party and the independents would have agreed unanimously on who should sit on that panel. There would be no second-guessing and no discussion after the fact. Those people would be there and they would be agreed to, and that is the method that would be used. I think it's important. It gets the whole process off to a very good start -- a much more fair, open and balanced start. It's an improvement and a very good start to the process.

Once the committee is struck and we've determined who's on that committee, we have to deal with the reporting process and the recommendations that they come forward with. We have done it not just with the ombudsman but with the auditor general, and there are other provisions whereby people or officers of this Legislature report directly to the Legislature, not just to the minister or to the cabinet.

The minister says that the government governs and the minister has the power to govern and to make these types of decisions. That's true, but in reality this Legislature governs. We're all representatives of our constituencies, and we all have the opportunity to debate and to bring forth recommendations. The idea is that instead of having this committee report in secret to the minister and having the minister determine whether or not those recommendations are legitimate, this committee, this panel, would now report to the Legislature as a whole, and the Legislature as a whole would determine whether or not those recommendations were valid, appropriate or balanced.

It would be a much more open process. All of those constituents out there -- the business community, management, labour, individuals, small and large businesses, small and large labour unions -- would know that there were 75 people in this chamber looking at those recommendations before they get to the cabinet table and before they are made into legislation. In the end, the minister could be assured of a much more balanced piece of legislation and much more balanced regulations and amendments to any labour code that might come along. This would also ensure that it would have a much better acceptance than what we've seen this last time.

We have in this case a very unfortunate situation where the seven leaders of the major business groups -- one of them being Kathy Sanderson from the business coalition, which represents some 20 organizations of business members -- have objected to Bill 84. They have written a letter to that effect, held a press conference and gone to great lengths to ensure that the public knows they're not happy with this bill.

[2:45]

What we would see is that well before we even got to that stage, well before the legislation ever came before this House, we would have that consensus. We would have the approval of this Legislature in principle to some of those amendments. It would have been reported directly to the Legislature in the form of a report or White Paper that we could then discuss, take back to our constituencies, deal with these groups, come back with recommendations in a very serious and honest manner, and have them dealt with expeditiously through this House. Instead of spending six or eight weeks on legislation, it could probably go through in much less time and save money; it would be more efficient and more effective.

So by making these minor process changes, by having this committee appointed by the Legislature and reporting to the Legislature, I think we would be more likely to gain unanimous support for those recommendations. They would come in much more quickly and much more effectively and would be much less contentious that what we have before us now, or what the last government brought in. Had they had this type of amendment in place, they would not have brought in the type of legislation that they did, and labour wouldn't have been as upset with it as they were.

I think it's a valid amendment. It's given in all sincerity and in the hope that the government takes those recommendations. I think it's a valid point. It's certainly given very sincerely and in an effort to reform the way we do government in this province, to ensure that in fact it is open -- something the minister and his government campaigned on excessively through the last election and even prior to that, and something that we certainly feel is important. I would hope that the minister would take it in all seriousness, take some time to examine it, and either deal with it today -- we can vote on it -- or, if he'd like to set it aside for a few days, can come back to it once he's had a chance to consult. But I think those are the options and the types of amendments to legislation that we need to see and that we want to bring forward in a constructive manner.

L. Stephens: I'd like to speak in support of this amendment, particularly as it relates to subsection (2), the recommendation that the Legislative Assembly be presented with any amendments or recommendations and so on, as opposed to the minister making regulations considered necessary or advisable.

I think we all realize that regulations can certainly provide direction for legislation and in many cases are more important than the actual legislation itself. So I 

[ Page 4101 ]

would like to know the minister's comments on the proposal for subsection (2) here, as far as making regulations is concerned.

He's gone out....

The Chair: Hon. member, would you wish to continue? The minister doesn't seem to be here at the moment.

L. Stephens: He said one more minute. Here he is.

Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry. What was the question?

L. Stephens: I would like your comments on subsection (2) here in regard to regulations. I was speaking in favour of the amendment that any recommendations, or whatever changes the minister may want to make, come back to the Legislature, and that the minister is not empowered to make regulations on his own. In some cases regulations -- as we all realize -- are more important than the actual legislation. I would like to know your comments on that.

Hon. M. Sihota: With regard to subsection (2) -- which I understand is the concern of the hon. member -- that provision has existed since the seventies. I guess there may arise a situation where regulations are necessary concerning the receipt of submissions and recommendations under subsection (1). I think it important that any of the submissions made be made public and available. That's why, during the course of this process, we made sure that they were located in the library of the Ministry of Labour for the public to view, and for those who live on the lower mainland they were made available through the employment standards office in Burnaby. Those facts were indeed made public. I guess it's always possible for someone in the future to pass a regulation which would prevent others from seeing the submissions that were made. I think that may be a concern that the hon. member may have with regard to section 3(2). But one ought not overlook the politics of that, which I think would bring about a fair bit of criticism. Secondly, one ought not overlook the fact that there now exist in this province freedom-of-information provisions which would make it virtually impossible to place some kind of restriction on the availability of documents. Off the top of my head I can't think of a reason why one would want to use 3(2). I suspect it was there for good reason in 1972 and has probably survived since then, but given the freedom-of-information legislation, its time, with regard to that issue that I just flagged, has probably passed.

L. Stephens: In regard to subsection (2) again, it says: "...may make regulations...." I wasn't referring specifically to submissions or recommendations received by the minister. But it says under subsection (1) that there can be amendments to the legislation and the regulations that would govern that. Would the minister be able to make regulations to the legislation on issues that come forward through these submissions and recommendations without them being amendments brought before the House?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes. It would be possible, on the basis of amendments that are brought forward, to then have regulations that flow from them. Of course, you have to have the amendment first for the regulation to follow through by order-in-council. I suspect that even if this section were not there, you could do that through the basic regulatory power that you have under the other provisions of the act.

C. Tanner: First of all, congratulations on getting over your pain. It shows in your answers today, and we're all pleased to see you in much better spirits. Maybe we'll get answers more in our line of thinking this time than we did yesterday.

The minister made reference to the Freedom of Information Act, and I assume he means the expanded Freedom of Information Act. Did I understand the minister to say that information from the report from the committee which he will appoint will be available to any member of the public or any member of this Legislature through the Freedom of Information Act?

Hon. M. Sihota: I want hon. members to understand that my performance in here yesterday was not affected by the pain in my neck. There were other pains that were in operation, and we'll see how the opposition behaves today to determine whether or not my responses are in keeping with the tone of debate that they set in the House.

With regard to the question from the hon. member, let me put it this way: it is always within the authority of a minister to make a decision as to when they should release recommendations that come to them. Let's take the current example of the report; it was presented to me on September 11 but not released until October 26. I think that was when it went to the opposition. You have to understand that there needs to be some latitude for government to be able to analyze a report, particularly a report of this nature, which is of some magnitude. It only makes sense that it go through the process of being considered by the ministry for its analysis and being considered by cabinet for its analysis. That's what happened in regard to the report that I received on September 11. As I said at the time, I thought that really the outside scope was about a month from the time when the ministry first started to do its analytical work on it and the time when I thought it should be released. We tended to work within that time frame, and I suspect the same would happen again.

I'm sure the hon. member would not disagree with me that there needs to be time for ministries to analyze a report so that there can be public comment. And I'm sure he will agree with me that there is also an obligation incumbent on the government to make these reports available as quickly as reasonably possible. If that is not being adhered to, then the provisions of the freedom-of-information act would prevail and would allow one to make the application to have the report released.

C. Tanner: The minister makes a good point, but he knows he is part of a successor government to a government that didn't release any reports. This is 

[ Page 4102 ]

proven by the fact that when his government took over, there was nothing but a flood of reports into this House for the first two months that we sat. We are writing legislation not only for this government but for governments in the future -- hopefully, a Liberal one very shortly. But in the meantime we have to deal with this government. This government might have the reputation for putting out reports, but we're not guaranteed that, and we're writing legislation for the whole province, for any governments in here.

Consequently I think it's important that this House know that it's the minister's intent, but also that the legislation is in default, in my view, for the simple reason that this government has a particular political philosophy. Specifically in this piece of legislation it is important that the government not abuse that philosophy at the expense of the 60 percent of people who didn't vote for them, or alternatively, not make all the appointments to that board the same political stripe as he and his members are. As a consequence, what concerns us in this House is that the Legislature should have some input into the appointment of those members. How do we know that the reports you're getting are balanced unless we have some input into who those members are?

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, you talked about the previous administration. With regard to the previous administration -- and I agree with you that they certainly did keep reports under wraps -- let's also not forget that there was an election, as you obviously noted, and during the course of that election we promised that we would refrain from that kind of activity. Indeed, it's not simply good enough to say that; you have to make sure that it becomes the law. We've done that in terms of freedom of information.

So I think what transpired in the past is unlikely to happen in the future unless some government -- and it certainly won't be a New Democrat government -- reverses or repeals that legislation. I don't think that's going to happen. I think that now that we've got freedom of information in British Columbia, it will be here to stay, and I'm sure that years from now when people reflect on this government, they'll see that it was one of the more significant changes that we brought forward. It's probably why there won't be a Liberal government in British Columbia for some time, because of the kind of good government and good legislation that we've provided. [Laughter.]

I'm sorry I upset the member for Okanagan-Vernon so much with that comment.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's amazing what you have to say in this House to bring joy into the Social Credit caucus. But those days are gone, my friends.

An Hon. Member: Not for long.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, they're gone. Happy days are over.

C. Tanner: Forever.

Hon. M. Sihota: Forever.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Oh, I see. I didn't know you were working on forming another Liberal-Socred coalition. It's amazing how that always brings silence.

On the more serious point made by the hon. member, with regard to labour legislation, I guess it's always possible for a government to appoint a panel that represents their ideological values. But you pay a price if you do that: you're going to produce legislation that's out of step.

[3:00]

We took a lot of care with the panel that we appointed, because we felt that if legislative changes are to have any credibility, then those who are entrusted with the task of reviewing the legislation must have credibility among the stakeholders. That's why, for the better part of the months of December and January a year ago, we met with labour and business and academics and practitioners in the labour relations field, both small and big. We consulted with them widely to seek their input as to who should be on the committee. We arrived at a committee of nine people from all walks of life: small business and big business, big labour and small labour, academics and practitioners. These are people who -- I suspect, although I don't know -- have all sorts of different political values.

If you go down the route that the hon. member suggests, you run the risk of drafting legislation that does not have the credibility it needs to survive beyond the term of a government. I know that from time to time the opposition has made all sorts of suggestions with regard to the panel we appointed, but I also know that on quiet, sober reflection they acknowledge that the panel really was outstanding.

I don't think there have been too many times in this province of ours where we've been able to pull in the chancellor of Simon Fraser University -- a businesswoman who runs a small business -- to be on a panel; to have the dean of law of the University of British Columbia; to attract a representative from the ombudsman's office who dealt with labour relations matters, as we had in the case of Cleta Brown; to bring in someone like Marie Decaire, who works with a private sector trade union; to bring in someone who has the remarkable credentials of Vince Ready, who is known throughout North America as one of the leading mediators and arbitrators on this continent; to bring in people with the labour law background of John Baigent and the management background of Tom Roper, both of whom have practised in this area for years; to pull the former Deputy Minister of Labour under the Social Credit administration, Graham Leslie, into the mix and have the Deputy Minister of Labour, an individual who was not a political appointment, chair the whole process. When one reflects on the credentials of the people we put together, it demonstrates that going that route will produce legislation that has credibility, as this does.

[ Page 4103 ]

C. Tanner: The minister makes a good point. In actual fact he hasn't heard any criticism from this member about that panel. He might have had from other members, but he hasn't from this one -- which is not necessarily to say that I'm endorsing it; I am just not that familiar with it. I wasn't paying that much attention. I had other things to think about at the time.

The point I'm making is not what's happened in the past; it's what could happen in the future. Having made a very strong case for having an impartial committee, why doesn't the minister give the authority to appoint that committee, use a select standing committee or make a select standing committee of the House to help him make those selections? Wouldn't that add even more validity to his case?

Hon. M. Sihota: You should not overlook the power of this precedent. You should have more faith in the fact that the people who are elected to this chamber come to the realization, at the end of the day, that they have public interest responsibilities. That's what guides them in the development of public policy, not the interests of any one special interest group in society. Those who did not have that faith certainly must have it now, given what we did with regard to this situation. With that precedent set and with the recognition -- from my own observations in this House -- that people tend to do things in the public interest, I think the appropriate safeguards are in place.

C. Tanner: If we followed that bit of rhetoric we had just now, we wouldn't need an opposition, because we'd just assume that the member is going to accept his responsibilities for the public well-being and do everything correctly. If that was true, who needs two or three parties to run? We'll just have one party. A one-party government is not acceptable in this democracy. We don't need the minister saying that he's going to do his duty; we expect him to do his duty. We expect all members on the government side to do their duty.

I'm trying to add to the minister's validity. He has appointed the committee in the past, and because they serve at leisure, he can reappoint them when he likes. Why doesn't he use a standing committee of the House to appoint those members? You didn't answer that, Mr. Minister. Then we on this side of the House, as well as the public, would be assured that they have a cross-section of the public representing them on this most important committee.

Hon. M. Sihota: Far be it from me to tell the hon. member what the role of the opposition should be. But let's face facts. If the government strays from that public interest responsibility and crafts a committee that meets the worst-case scenario, then the opposition will do its duty, as it often does in this House: it will influence the process and shift public opinion, and public opinion will have the effect that it should have. I think we both agree that there's a need for people to rise above the fray in doing this kind of work, and I'd like think we both agree that it happened in this case. I'm certain on that point, and I think the hon. member is kind of on that point.

If I may digress for one moment, that should not be taken to suggest that there's not a role for parliamentary committees. There is. It's an important role, and quite frankly, we should have that kind of discussion. Obviously it's out of order right now so I can't get into it. But there's a legitimate role in the operation of our Legislature for parliamentary committees. Quite frankly, from my way of thinking, we do not make appropriate use of that mechanism. Historically in British Columbia we haven't, and there really needs to be a substantial and conscious change in that regard. I don't think this provision is the place to begin, but I can think of other areas that fall within my mandate where there should be more of that work ongoing.

If one reflects on comments that I made in opposition in the past, I said that there should be a greater role for an opposition with regard to legislative committees. I still think that. If I have one regret over the course of the last year, it's that the obligations of office and the time away from Victoria have prevented us from placing more work in front of the committee that deals with labour matters, and that should change. That's not what the hon. member is saying, but if he were to say that, that's what I would say, and I know that he'd agree with me.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't want to belabour the point, but if the minister truly believes that there is no need for accountability through this Legislature and if he truly believes that he himself can be the one to oversee these types of things, then why is it that we've established a principle in this House whereby the auditor general doesn't report to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Government Services, but he reports to this chamber and this Legislature as a whole on an annual basis? I think that in itself is a crucial guiding point.

Under the minister's argument, the auditor general could just as easily report only to the Minister of Finance. We would end up in the situation we had about a year ago when the former Finance minister from the Social Credit Party made some interesting comments about the auditor general being -- I can't remember the exact words -- a bean counter with his nose in a trough. That was extremely unfortunate. The problem there was that had that auditor general had to report to the Minister of Finance, this House never would have heard from the auditor general. This House would have no confidence in the ability or the independence of the auditor general.

Given the comments made by the Minister of Labour and the Premier, the labour legislation is an integral part, one of the pillars, of an industrial strategy that they're trying to bring forward. For the minister to make those statements is, I think, very enlightening as to the importance of this panel. If the minister agrees that that's the case, then it is important that the minister realize that the same types of responsibilities, the same chain of command, should exist between this panel and the Legislature as exists between the auditor general and this Legislature. The parallels are quite clear and, I think, extremely important.

[ Page 4104 ]

The amendment isn't offered as a frivolous amendment; it's offered as an amendment that establishes reform, credibility, open government and also establishes a confidence in the general public on labour legislation reform, which has always been a contentious issue in this province going back as far as you like. It brings in a whole new element of openness and accountability and responsibility. It is made in that regard. It's made with that intent and nothing else. There is no hidden agenda here other than to try and reform the institutions to make them more accountable and to make it more open. That is the reason we brought it forward. I hope the minister will agree to it.

J. Tyabji: Why is it that this minister is continually eroding the democratic process? We have the opportunity to go to the Legislative Assembly, the body of duly-elected representatives for the entire province, but the minister instead would like to take that initiative fully unto himself. We see in this bill a series of examples where the minister's powers are increased, where the secret ballot is taken away, where the minister decides that he would rather have the discretion than have it go to the House. Why is the minister taking such a high-handed approach in this bill when it comes to the special advisers? Is this minister worried that if the special advisers are appointed by the House, they will differ in large part from the advisers that he would be appointing?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yesterday I talked about naivety, and I guess I will again today. Only the naive would think that ministers are not accountable to this House, and only those who do not have an understanding of our parliamentary system would think that amendments can be made to legislation without the blessing of this House.

J. Tyabji: If we want to talk about political naivety, we can talk about a minister who actually thinks that he has the ability to speak for all the members of the House on something like special advisers to a committee. What we are actually trying to do, as a constructive opposition, is to let this minister know that it is not enough for an annual evaluation to go directly to the minister. We've seen in the last year that this government has not been in a position to share any information with this House. In fact, we've seen repeated commitments to share information not being followed through with, including the report that was supposed to come to our own Labour critic prior to the legislation being brought before the House, which wasn't done. We had the labour legislation being tabled as late as possible in the day. We have regulations that haven't even been drafted yet for this bill, that haven't come before the House. We cannot possibly trust this minister to take that annual report for himself and then share it with the House. So, hon. Chair, in the most democratic way possible, the Liberal opposition is saying that we want that report to be made directly to the House because we don't believe the minister will share it with us otherwise. What is this minister afraid of? Why does the annual evaluation have to come to him and not to the House?

[3:15]

Hon. M. Sihota: There's nothing in this section which restricts the hon. member's ability to speak on any aspect of appointments, be it advisers.... Nothing in this section restricts her ability to speak to any matters which are being evaluated. Nothing restricts it to being even done annually. Nothing restricts her ability to speak to any amendments, and nothing restricts her ability to stand up in this House and suggest to a minister that a specific matter should be referred to the committee of special advisers. I think that the hon. member doesn't understand her role as an opposition member.

J. Tyabji: I know full well that I can stand up and speak on whatever I like in this House. Once the bill gets to the House, or once something has been made to the minister after the fact, we always have question period -- all 15 minutes of it, four times a week -- to try to make this minister accountable.

What we are trying to impress on this minister is the difference between retroactive comment on something that's a fait accompli and constructive input on something at a point where it can actually make a difference -- so that it doesn't come to the House, where the government unfortunately has a majority on these issues, and we make comments and try to persuade the minister after the fact.

If the democratic process is going to be properly served, we will have input and recommendations on the special advisers. We've seen how this minister's appointments have served the people of the province. We've seen that they have not served them particularly well, and that the minister in the past has, in my mind, continually subverted the democratic process by trying to bypass the official opposition critic on Labour. In the bill here, he is not only assuming more powers under section 10, but would like to be the only person who has input into the committee of special advisers. I want to ask this minister: if he were on the opposition benches, does he think it would be equally as effective to have a comment after the fact as to have input in the recommendation stages of the special advisers -- into the bill, the recommendations and the regulations?

Hon. M. Sihota: I note, possibly with some trepidation, that the Social Credit critic has not joined in this debate. I think, because of his experience as minister, he fully appreciates the reasons behind this provision.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member opposite, if she would just settle down for a moment and listen to the balance of what I've got to say, should understand that when she talks about...

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'll just wait for her to settle down so she can hear this. ...retroactive input, she does not fully appreciate the responsibility of the opposition. Nothing restricts a 

[ Page 4105 ]

member of the opposition from making comment at any time to a Minister of Labour with respect to any aspect of legislation and any appointment. If the hon. member feels somehow sullied because she can only make comment retroactively now that the legislation has been filed, I would have to conclude that there has been a remarkable dereliction of duty on her part for not having commented in advance.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

J. Tyabji: For the edification of the minister who would like to make comment on my potential dereliction of duty with regard to retroactive comment on a fait accompli bill, let me read out the amendment that the Liberal opposition has put before him: "The minister shall, on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly" -- which includes the opposition -- "appoint a committee of special advisers to undertake a continuing review of this code and labour-management relations...." The implication of this for the minister is that the "recommendation" is something that happens prior to the appointment being made -- I think this subtlety is escaping him -- and that the whole purpose of that is so the official opposition can have input, so we can help have a balanced perspective within those special advisers.

Certainly the minister needs help particularly in determining a balanced approach to the labour field, to labour legislation and to labour relations. I would like to ask him if he is resisting implementation of our amendment because he is afraid of having input from the opposition on the recommendations to these advisers, in reviewing the implementation of this labour bill, given that he hasn't allowed us to have any constructive input into either the definition stage or the special purposes stage. So he now wants to protect his own hidden agenda on the bill.

Hon. M. Sihota: The only thing I'm trying to resist is the temptation to snap back at the hon. member, for the simple reason that prior to her entry into this debate, I thought we were having a rather congenial discussion in the House. In fact, members opposite had commented on that fact. Obviously the hon. member opposite finds discomfort with that and wishes to engage in this kind of chippiness, and I guess that's her prerogative.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to set the minister straight. If he was getting some kind of warm and fuzzy feeling from the official opposition, he was misreading the signals he was getting. If anything, we're just a little frustrated in that we keep coming forward with constructive recommendations to make this bill somewhat viable and so that we don't strangle all the small and medium-sized businesses in the province. I think our Labour critic's head is getting a little sore from continually banging it against a wall. Perhaps that was being reflected, and I just came to spice things up a little.

The minister still has not answered the question. Is he refusing implementation of the amendment, which would allow input from all the elected members of the House to the recommendations for the special advisers, because he's worried that -- just as we were trying to point out his hidden agenda through the definitions and purposes stage -- when he comes forward with his recommendations or his group of special advisers, we would have a problem with them because they might not be balanced, just as the bill, the definition section and the special purpose section, are not balanced? Is that what he's worried about? Is that why he won't accept our amendment?

Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member would take the time to refer to the comments I've already made in Hansard, particularly in my exchange with the member for Saanich, she would have a full and complete answer to the question she has asked.

G. Farrell-Collins: With regard to some comments the minister made a few minutes ago that his government, and the minister in particular, have been very forthcoming with information and with reports, etc., it's interesting to note that the minister sat on the B.C. Hydro report for some months from the time it was actually delivered to his office until it was released the other day. We finally had to ask him to table it in the House, which he did after question period. I'm not even sure if he was keeping it secret or it was stuffed away in one of the boxes on the floor and he wasn't aware of it. The information certainly wasn't forthcoming in a timely manner.

In fact, B.C. Hydro, which is a Crown under his direction, was in violation of the act, because it's....

Hon. M. Sihota: On a point of order. The member is debating matters relating to B.C. Hydro and the release of the annual report, and I have a lot of difficulty understanding how that is relevant to this debate.

The Chair: Your point is well taken, hon. member. Would the members please confine their statements to the amendment to section 3.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll be glad to illustrate how that relates precisely and concisely to this amendment. Under the act, B.C. Hydro is required to report to the minister with an annual statement, as are all Crowns, and the minister, within the confines of the act that governs that Crown, is to very quickly present those annual reports to this Legislature. That was just an example and an illustration of where that simply did not happen in the minister's own jurisdiction. I'm not trying to cause the minister any hardship or to cast derision on his administration of the Crown corporation. I'm merely trying to use it as one example of where an annual report was not released to this House in time. In fact, it was sat on by the minister.

Secondly, the report that was made available to him with regard to Bill 84 sat in his desk for over a month before it was released to the public, which was unfortunate.

The third issue is that during the last session, the people of the province woke up one day to find that their ICBC rates had been drastically increased. The 

[ Page 4106 ]

members of the opposition, myself in particular as the critic for ICBC, requested in written form that the minister and the Premier refer the matter of rate increases at ICBC to the Public Accounts Committee and also to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services for examination to determine whether or not they were valid. The minister declined to do so.

The intent behind this amendment is to ensure that those types of things do not happen. I've given three concrete examples, of which the minister is very aware, where that was not the case in his short 12 months as Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. As I said, I'm not trying to pour derision on the minister; I'm merely illustrating that, within his own ministry, despite his claims for openness and directness and honest government, in three separate instances that was not in fact the case.

With a piece of legislation as critical and as important as the labour bill, we feel it is extremely important -- given the histories in this House and the history of this ministry -- that these types of changes and amendments to the labour code be brought before the full Legislature for perusal, that the report be made to the whole Legislature and not solely to the minister to be released and distributed at his discretion, as it says in the bill that he's brought forward. It should be done in an open manner. I think those amendments are offered in all sincerity and, given the track record of the minister and the track record of what has gone on in this House before the New Democratic Party was in power, that is a legitimate concern. That is what we are trying to do with this act: we're trying to set a bit of a precedent, although the precedent has already been set with the ombudsman and the auditor general. We're merely trying to move and to contain and to shift that type of accountability into this piece of legislation, which the minister and the Premier themselves have said is an extremely important piece of legislation.

C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, if I could refer the minister to a section that we're going to get to eventually, I suppose, section 157, it says that the minister may make a report to the Legislature. It virtually says at his convenience. While it doesn't say exactly that, it is when it's available, which means that we could probably go a year or two -- or certainly a number of months -- before we would be able to have some input. I don't think it's an unreasonable request from this side of the House to ask the minister to let us have input at the beginning instead of at the reporting stage at the end.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, we're on section 3, not section 157.

C. Tanner: It's section 157(3) on reports, and it says in actual fact: "The report referred to in subsection (2) must be laid before the Legislative Assembly as soon as is practicable." What that means is the practicability of the minister and not the practicability of the Legislature. I know we're not talking about section 157, but I know very well that when we get to section 157, the minister is going to stand up and say: "we dealt with that in section 3." That's the game they played the last time round. So what we're trying to say is that we're anticipating something that's going to happen in section 157, Mr. Chairman, and we think the minister should address it now and not just dismiss it as saying we're not there yet. All through the debate so far, in the last three days, we've been backwards and forwards on various parts of this legislation which are important to the part that we're discussing immediately. So could the minister tell me whether section 157(3) applies, and if it does, how that protects or enhances our ability to get input before the minister makes the decision and not afterwards?

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, with respect to the rules, I don't want to be out of order. I would just tell the hon. member this, if it gives him any comfort: when we get to section 157, I won't refer to section 3.

J. Tyabji: I still haven't received any answers to the questions I asked the minister. Really, I want to know what this minister is afraid of with regard to the Legislative Assembly having input on the special advisers. Why is he repeatedly stifling the opposition's efforts to get some constructive input into the bill which makes sure that it represents the views of all British Columbians, not just this minister?

[3:30]

Hon. M. Sihota: I have the highest respect for the rules as they relate to repetition. The hon. member knows full well that I have answered that question already, and if she doesn't think I have, she should refer to Hansard and find out that I have.

J. Tyabji: The minister has not. I have been watching this debate the entire afternoon, and I completely disagree that he has answered it. Furthermore, I'm getting a little concerned that this minister is taking this much too lightly. Perhaps the opposition has been too polite with him. In the last three days -- today included -- we've had to deal with the minister's hidden agenda, which has been coming out repeatedly in the specific sections of this bill. We put this amendment forward because we are trying to move that agenda to some kind of ground where the rest of the province can participate and not just the friends and insiders of the NDP government.

Will this minister stand up and at least say to the House, so that we don't have to go through this with every single section, that he has an agenda, that his agenda is completely tailored to the union elite and that the real reason he won't accept our amendment is because if he did, he'd have the input of other members of the House prior to making a decision? Is he afraid of that input and any adverse publicity? He wants to do exactly what he did with Bill 84 when he appoints his special advisers, and that is to do it without any real consultation, at his own discretion, without the input of the Legislative Assembly and without the democratic processes consistent with the bill, which undermines democratic rights, is contrary to the rights of the 

[ Page 4107 ]

individual and is completely tailored to the union elite. Will he stand up and confirm that? Maybe then we can all go home early.

Hon. M. Sihota: I take great pleasure in pointing out for the record that the hon. member had great difficulty asking that series of questions with a straight face.

J. Tyabji: It is extremely frustrating and disappointing to be dealing with a minister of the cabinet who repeatedly refuses to answer a question. It's true that in my facetiousness I can't keep the smile off my face, but this minister is going to be making a lot of people upset if he refuses to answer why he is eroding democratic rights by not allowing the input of all Members of the Legislative Assembly, and by hiding his own agenda, hiding behind this bill and tailoring everything to the union elite. We know that the agenda of the NDP is coming out. We know that the friends and insiders are being paid off. Will he admit that that is the real reason he won't accept this amendment, which allows for the input of the entire House?

Hon. M. Sihota: No.

J. Tyabji: If he is saying that he is not tailoring the bill to the union elite and not fulfilling his own government's hidden agenda -- which we on the opposition side totally disagree with -- let's assume for a minute that there's some credibility in his answer. Will he stand up and say what specifically is wrong with this amendment that he believes he knows better than the entire Legislative Assembly on the appointment of the special advisers?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member knows full well that I've already dealt with that issue. She also knows full well that she obviously wasn't watching it on TV, as much as she may suggest that she was, because if she was, she would have heard the answer.

It's very straightforward, hon. member. Don't underestimate the ability of the opposition to influence government, through this Legislative Assembly, with regard to any of the matters contained in section 3.

G. Farrell-Collins: With all due respect to the minister, the member for Okanagan East is trying to ask the minister -- and she's phrasing the question fairly carefully.... The minister has stated why he likes his changes in Bill 84, but he has not been able to identify any problems with the amendment that we're putting forward to those changes. The intent, as I said, is to ensure that the committee is selected by the Legislature as a whole, much as is done with the auditor general or the ombudsman, and that the reporting procedure is again identical to what's done, for example, with the auditor general. That is the intent of our amendment. The minister, yes, has said that he likes his system better, and he's given us his reasons for thinking that it's an okay system and said that we can sort of go around the legislation and ensure that the opposition does have some input. But what the minister hasn't done -- and I would ask him to do it very clearly -- is tell us what's wrong with the amendment that we've brought forward.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: It is in order, hon. member, because we're on the amendment. If you haven't been here all day, that's your problem. But we are on the amendment, and that's what I'm asking the minister to deal with.

Could the minister stand up and tell us what's wrong with the amendment that we proposed? Why does he feel it won't work? Why is it not a better piece of legislation or an improvement upon the recommendations that he's brought forward? I ask him that in all sincerity.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's not so much that I haven't answered the question. The issue is that the Liberal opposition doesn't like hearing any answers other than the answers that fit their purpose.

I don't wish to be disrespectful of members opposite, and I don't enjoy being short in debate. I think there's room, and appropriately, in this chamber for lengthy debate on matters where the debate is warranted. There is need for some debate with regard to this amendment, and we've offered that.

I think the hon. member knows what I had to say about the role of the ombudsman vis-�-vis the provisions here and the scope of his responsibilities versus the scope of the responsibility that falls here. I think the hon. member heard what I had to say earlier about the ability of the Legislature to make amendments versus the power of the minister. He heard what I had to say earlier about the responsibility of the opposition and other members of this chamber to raise issues that go to the heart of the legislation at any time -- not at the time of an annual evaluation, as the legislation says, but at any time. Indeed, that is encouraged and most welcome and always taken note of. The hon. member also heard what I had to say about listening carefully to arguments that are put forward and recognizing that when there's a compelling and logical argument put forward in this chamber the government has a public-interest duty to respond.

All those points were amplified upon earlier in debate. As I said, I do not wish to be short or disrespectful, but the hon. member should understand that the questions have been answered.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister has again itemized those reasons why he feels his change to Bill 84 is a good one, but he hasn't said what is wrong with our amendment. We've been waiting to hear that. If the minister intends to vote against the amendment, he should be very clear on what's wrong with the amendment and not just what's right about his proposal.

As I said earlier, I think this amendment is an improvement. With all due respect to the minister, we had hoped that he would accept it. It is given in all sincerity, and the minister has yet to define why he will be voting against it. He has defined very clearly why 

[ Page 4108 ]

he'll be voting in favour of his section 3, but he hasn't explained why he will be voting against the amendment to section 3. And that is what we are waiting to hear.

L. Hanson: I carefully read the amendment, and while I can understand some of the reluctance that the minister may have to accept it -- I might have had some of those same concerns myself in another life -- the fact is that the minister keeps suggesting that the process he went through was a fair, reasonable process. It took into account the public interest; it took into account the interests of small business; and it took into account the interests of all British Columbia. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the report that the minister so sincerely and fiercely protects as being the product of a committee representing all of those interests of British Columbia is in fact the product of a committee of three people with very, very narrow interests. If we see a continuation of this representation of a broad section of British Columbia in the review of legislation, and it is put forward in the same manner as the minister suggests that this committee was representative of, I have to support the amendment, because at least if the Legislature could take part in the appointment of those people, there may truly be representation of all the people in British Columbia.

To emphasize that, I cannot understand how a committee of people representing public interest, representing small business, could possibly agree to things such as education not being an essential service. How could they possibly have a consensus that there's no need to have a democratic vote? And for anyone who understands labour relations from a public perspective, how could they possibly have a consensus agreement that we should allow secondary boycotts? While I don't expect a response from the minister on this, I have to support the amendment for that reason. If it does nothing else, it involves the Legislature in the choosing of the people to represent the people of British Columbia in the process of the ongoing review.

Hon. M. Sihota: Just a few quick points. First of all, the hon. member talked about the importance of making sure that there are not narrow interests in drafting labour legislation. He knows full well that the flaw in Bill 19 was that that's exactly what happened. He knows full well that there were some very narrow interests drafting legislation in the office of then Premier Vander Zalm, when he had the unfortunate experience of having to be out on the road trying to engage in public input with regard to this labour legislation that he sought to author. So I guess he knows full well that there's always room for the kind of sham process that happened with Bill 19 to happen again in the future. I hope that won't happen, but it indeed happened during his life experience.

Let me also say, with regard to the other points that the hon. member raises, that I think it's safe to say that at no point -- that I can recollect, at least, and the hon. member I'm sure will correct me if I'm wrong -- did the hon. member criticize the panel that we had established. I think the parties opposite recognized that the panel we established was broadly based, very capable and very skilled. I think they were concerned about whether the government would interfere with the process, and I think the record is crystal-clear on that point: there was no interference. I think it's fair to say that the hon. member does not agree with the product of that process, and that's fair enough. That's why we're here in the Legislature, and we'll debate the matters that he referred to -- be they education or other public interest responsibilities or the certification process -- later on in this debate. But I don't think anyone in this chamber realistically endeavoured to criticize the process that this government employed in establishing its panel. As I said earlier, I certainly don't recollect any. I think there was a general agreement from all present that the people we had selected were outstanding and that the process was fair.

I need only remind the hon. member what was said by the panellists with regard to legislation and the process the previous administration undertook. I quote from the report of this panel, which consulted with British Columbians widely, and which was indeed an independent group:

"While no one seriously attempted to defend Bill 19 as balanced legislation, some employers expressed opposition to certain parts of the legislation which invested significant powers in the commissioner to intervene in collective bargaining. Apart from the substantive changes which Bill 19 brought, there was general dissatisfaction with the process by which the legislation was implemented. Suffice to say, few today see Bill 19 as the product of meaningful consultation or as an attempt to achieve an appropriate level of consensus between labour and management."

I don't think we've been criticized for the process that we engaged in, as was the case with Bill 19. I don't think we've been criticized with respect to the people that we put together, apart from in this chamber, and interestingly enough only from the Liberal opposition, or predominantly from within the Liberal opposition.

It is, however, appropriate to talk about the product. It is obvious to all of us in this chamber that there needs to be a debate as to what was produced at the end of the day. During the course of that debate there will be expressions of opinion, some ideological and some practical, which we'll hear as we get on with the debate on that product.

[3:45]

But with regard to the individuals and the process, I think it unfair to the individuals involved and to the process for anyone to question the integrity of that process. The government stands strongly behind the process. It worked. And we stand behind a provision that encourages that kind of process in the future with this precedent set. It welcomes debate -- which we should get on with -- with regard to some of the other substantive provisions of the legislation.

L. Hanson: I'm pleased that the minister was able to give me a lesson in how Bill 19 was generated. I suggest that he's wrong, but I suggest also that the debate is not about how Bill 19 was generated. I have suggested many times that if we wish to debate the performance of Bill 19, we should put Bill 84 on the back 

[ Page 4109 ]

burner and take the opportunity to debate the process of Bill 19.

But today we're debating the process that led to this particular point with Bill 84 in front of us. The minister says that we should not question the integrity of the people on the panel. The minister accuses us of not listening, but he was not listening. I never questioned the integrity of the panel; as a matter of fact, I have great respect for those people, whom I know -- particularly the three who went around the province.

But it is the minister's discussion in this House that keeps bringing forward the great process that he went through, the consultative process. I simply ask the minister: how could he expect the public of British Columbia to believe that representation of the public or of small business could possibly reach a consensus on the issues that I mentioned? Just because the minister keeps saying it is a consultative process and we have reached this consensus and this wonderful thing has come about as a result of that, it is not necessarily true. I have to support this amendment because it would give some possibility for the Legislature having some input into the choosing of people who may sit on a continual review of the legislation.

F. Gingell: I'm very glad that the member for Okanagan-Vernon talked about the fact that we are dealing with Bill 84. We're not dealing with Bill 19. I was one who was hoping that in the 1990s -- I hope I'm not keeping you up -- we would be having a more cohesive, cooperative and consultative process. To have the members of the special advisers or the review committee appointed and reporting to this Legislature, it seems to me, would be a very positive step in that regard.

The minister has been referring to the fact that nobody criticized the particular appointments of the three members who brought forward the report. I think it goes without question that they were all honourable and experienced men. We all recognized where they came from and the particular interests that they brought to the table. What went wrong is that when we got the report it turned out to be warm, because the minister had been sitting on it for quite a substantial period of time.

If there had been a reasonable period between the report being made public, not just to special interest groups, which may have happened.... If the report had been made public to the members of this Legislature, perhaps before the Legislature was called back -- if that was possible or legal -- and if there had then been a reasonable period of time.... It didn't need to be delayed forever. If there had been just 90 days for the ordinary people in this province, who are not labour lawyers or trade union specialists, to slowly read through the bill to digest it and get some understanding, I'm sure that we on this side of the House would have felt a lot more comfortable about the process.

Please don't think and please let it not be suggested that we in any way impugn the integrity of Messrs. Ready, Roper and Baigent. That isn't the case. What we do question, and where we do think this whole process has fallen down, is that there hasn't been a sufficient period of time for people from all walks of life -- employees, employers, individual trade unions, individual companies that have a collective agreement with a union, small business and medium-sized business which may not be unionized, single-person entrepreneurs -- to clearly study and understand the complexities of this somewhat complex subject.

The minister is a lawyer of some standing. We who aren't lawyers and aren't trained to think in that fashion simply cannot grasp the portents and importance of these complex bills until they are explained to us. I think the minister must recognize and accept the truth that is happening now. In the last ten days, as the importance of this bill is beginning to be understood by British Columbians who have not been knowledgeable about labour law and collective bargaining practices, have come, through the media, to understand the various sections that are in this bill and the various consequences that those sections will have. There is a growing rumble of concern, which is being expressed louder and louder every day. I can assure you that I am getting more phone calls and letters every day about this bill. I'm getting more on November 18 than I did on November 10, and on October 26 -- or whenever the bill was introduced -- we didn't get any. But it is growing, and I know that the minister knows it is growing. There are more reactions and concerns being expressed by not only narrow interest groups but also important and influential organizations in this province.

The Board of Trade does not just represent big business. The chambers of commerce do not just represent big business. The chamber of commerce in my community of Delta is a chamber of commerce of very small businesses. I spoke to them about ten days ago and said: "Would you like me to come to a chamber of commerce meeting, and we could have a discussion on Bill 84?" They didn't think that it was terribly important. Yesterday they were in a great panic. They need to get from me a summary of our concerns on the matters of the secret ballot, secondary boycotts and replacement workers. Now I've got to rush back there on Friday. They've arranged for a labour lawyer to speak to their regular meeting on November 25. They are terribly embarrassed that they didn't get these things organized back in the last few days of October. They didn't appreciate then what the consequences of this bill are.

I want to make this point and make it as strongly as I can, because it comes up the whole way through this bill. This side of the House does not question the integrity of the three commissioners. To suggest that we do is simply not true. What we do question is the process. We need to create an environment in British Columbia that is seen to be consultative, cooperative and open. Mr. Minister, the way to accomplish that, as far as section 3 is concerned, is to agree to and pass this amendment, which will move this review process and the appointment of the special advisers away from the narrow political interests of the minister -- whoever that may be when such appointments are made -- to the Legislature, and to have their report come to the Legislature. It really will add to a sense of cooperation if you would support this amendment, Mr. Minister.

[ Page 4110 ]

R. Neufeld: I have just a few short notes to the minister. It seems as though whenever the minister or a government member stands up, all they do is criticize and talk about how badly flawed the process was in Bill 19. If it was so badly flawed and you're so smart now, then why don't you do the right thing? Why don't you take some amendments from the opposition members and put them into the bill? Why do you want to continue down the same road? You constantly get up and talk about how bad Bill 19 was.

As the member for Okanagan-Vernon said, if you want to debate Bill 19, we're quite willing to stand up and debate Bill 19 -- the process and how it went through -- for as long as you want. We can all sit here and think about things that went wrong with Bill 19 in the process, but let's learn from our mistakes. It's obvious that this government just wants to carry on with what they think were mistakes from before.

D. Miller: We had an election.

R. Neufeld: We had an election; that's entirely correct.

I'm going to read a little quote from the Minister of Labour about....

D. Schreck: On a point of order. Hon. Chairman, much as I enjoyed second reading of the debate, we have progressed to committee stage and are on a specific amendment. The member's comments are clearly out of order.

[4:00]

The Chair: The Chair would remind members of the House that standing order 61(2) reads: "Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration." I would submit that we've strayed somewhat from the specifics of the amendment.

R. Neufeld: Mr. Chairman, I hope you will give me the same latitude that has been given to the other members earlier, even though that member doesn't want to listen. And if he doesn't, he can go outside for a while.

First, the amendment, as it is put forward, is to have the committee ratified by the Legislature. I don't find anything wrong with that at all, and I don't know why the minister would find anything wrong with that. There are people in British Columbia who are a little concerned -- small business specifically -- about what's going to happen with the labour law.

I'm going to read a quick note into the record about why small business is a little nervous about what's going on. It's a quote from the Minister of Labour on April 26; it was on CHEK 6. The minister said:

"Labour legislation will come down in June, and again that will be more controversial and be a sort of ideological piece of legislation that will reflect the philosophy of the government. Again you can expect fireworks over that, but that's fair enough. You know, people voted for a change and voted for our type of political philosophy to be implemented in government, and we will do it."

Mr. Chairman, that's why a lot of small businesses are a little nervous, and that's why the opposition parties want a committee that's unanimously ratified by the whole Legislature to review the labour legislation from time to time as to how it applies in British Columbia. I don't see any reason why the minister should be afraid of doing that. He continually talks, as I said earlier, about how flawed Bill 19 and the process were. What the minister hasn't gone through is the second part of the process: going out to the people with the bill to find out if they really want education not classed as an essential service. Small business may have different views about secondary boycotts, and I'm sure they do. They have different views about replacement workers. So why doesn't the minister take this bill out to the people and do the second part of the process? But obviously, just like he said in his quote, it's their ideology that they're going to present in their labour bill. They're going to be radical, and they told us they were going to be radical. They have no intention of not being radical. If the minister would reply to that, I would be very happy. I take my seat and wait for his reply.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister is not here, so I won't respond for him, but perhaps I'll continue with the debate a little bit. When the minister is here, he's often not awake. The reality with this section is.... The former Minister of Labour talked about how difficult it is to give up that control, that power. He's been elected. He's the minister, and therefore he should have the power to appoint these people. He alone should be the one they report to. If and when the minister decides, by whatever means he decides, then he'll report to either the public or the Legislature -- or not at all, for that matter -- under the legislation they've brought forward. That is extremely unfortunate.

The minister went on and on about how it needs to come through him. There needs to be a report made to the minister himself, and he needs to maintain that control. Time after time, year after year, decade after decade the debate has gone on to try and remove authority from people who would use it in an autocratic fashion. This is one further step along the way to ensuring that power rests not just with the minister but with the legislative body as a whole, so there's more openness and consultation and a better process in place.

I would bet that if the minister went back and looked through the Hansard of the debate when the auditor general was proposed or when legislation came forward to establish an ombudsman, he would see exactly the same types of arguments that the minister has been bringing forward, such as: "The minister and the government are elected to govern. You don't need an ombudsman or an auditor general. I'm an honest politician. I'll bring this information forward." The reality is slightly different. In three instances in the last 12 months information has not been forthcoming from his ministry. If that information had to be reported directly to the Legislature, it would have been made public in a timely fashion.

The Minister of Finance in the last government spoke, perhaps in a disrespectful way, about the then 

[ Page 4111 ]

auditor general. The auditor general was bringing concerns to light that had to do with how funds were being spent by the government, and in so doing, he offended the Minister of Finance. The reality was that the auditor general didn't report to the Minister of Finance; the auditor general reported to this Legislature. As a result, his concerns and recommendations regarding waste in government came to the public light, and they are being acted on. That is the way it should work. That is the process that should be in place. Had the auditor general's legislation been written much like the legislation that the Minister of Labour is proposing, that report would have gone to the Minister of Finance, and the then Minister of Finance would have looked at it and said: "I don't like this. I don't agree with it. According to the legislation, I don't have to release it." It never would have seen the light of day. The Public Accounts Committee and the Legislature would never have been informed of the mismanagement and unusual accounting practices that were taking place. It would have been extremely difficult for the public to ever have known exactly what was going on.

With this amendment we are trying to provide assurance to the public and this Legislature that the recommendations that come forward by that panel are going to see the light of day. They're not going to languish in the minister's office or be put away in a box somewhere. They're not going to be kept secret. They will be made public whether the minister agrees with them or not. That is the safety valve, the check and balance in this legislation. That is the fine point of this amendment. Its purpose is to ensure that if the recommendations come out and say that top-down organizing has taken place under Bill 84, if it says that yes, the provisions on certification are impinging on individual rights and that yes, the ban on replacement workers is having a detrimental effect on small and medium-sized business in this province, if that's the case, if that's what this panel finds, that report won't just gather dust in the minister's office. In fact, it will come to this Legislature, it will see the light of day, it will have the scrutiny of the press and the public in this province and it will have to be acted upon.

That is the type of government that people are asking for. Those are the types of changes and amendments that the public in British Columbia want to see. That's the type of government that they are asking us to bring forward. It's constructive government; it's positive government; it's accountable government. Those are the parameters of this amendment; that is the purpose behind this amendment. It's a sincere attempt to make this legislation more accountable and to make this Legislature more accountable. That is the intent and that is the reason it's coming into place, not because the minister doesn't like it and not because the minister thinks it will better serve his own interests and his own personal power base.

[4:15]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

On section 3.

J. Weisgerber: I do indeed want to speak to section 3. Section 3 deals with a continuing review of the code, and I think it would be a good idea for there to be an ongoing review of the labour code. I think that the kind of swings we have seen in labour legislation in this province haven't been particularly conducive to good business.

Having said that, I disagree with the process that's being proposed here. What the minister suggests is that he will continue with a process similar to the process that developed the labour legislation we are debating today. He said earlier, in speaking to the amendment, that we shouldn't attack the integrity of the process. Indeed, I won't attack the integrity of the people involved, but the process was clearly flawed because the legislation itself is flawed, and I think that speaks to the process. The process was not balanced and the process did not develop legislation that was balanced.

My fear is that this continuing review of the code is a disguise for the intention of the government to continue with the more controversial proposals that were made to the review panel. Indeed, I believe that this review of the code is designed to bring in things like the sectoral certification process, which the minister has said we won't proceed with at this time. He speaks in tones that would suggest that those words should be underlined: "at this time" is the key phrase with relation to the sectoral certification process.

We see in section 3 the mechanism that will bring in future amendments to this legislation, the kind of amendments that the business community is most concerned about. So it would seem logical, if that's not the intent of the government, that a different process than the one that developed this legislation would be established for ongoing review and updates of the legislation. The minister and the government have 

[ Page 4112 ]

rejected the amendment that was put forward that a legislative committee would establish the review committee. So we must look for some other mechanism. We must look for some way to ensure that the ongoing review of this process and this legislation is apolitical. If that's the intent of this section, then we must find a mechanism that is apolitical and that brings forward balanced recommendations rather than simply continuing to put forward the agenda of the NDP and the union elite.

Indeed, we see now from the reaction from the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, which has now increased from three to 12 to 14, and today -- as the minister knows, because they met with him -- 20 business organizations....

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: They did meet with us, for the edification of the Minister of Finance. They indicated to us how completely dissatisfied they were with this legislation, and they indicated to us that they were going to demand of this government amendments to the legislation. But there is an opportunity for modification, for the development of an appropriate process. It's interesting that the Minister of Labour would suggest that the B.C. Business Council and the Coalition of B.C. Businesses told him that they liked the legislation. Because I don't believe that to be true. Indeed, it is not true. But we have an opportunity here to develop a process that will be balanced. We had an opportunity, but the minister and the government defeated that proposal. We now have before us in section 3 the mechanism which will see the government continue with its agenda.

Those people -- the Coalition of B.C. Businesses and others -- who felt that in their discussions with government they had succeeded in killing the notion of sectoral certification should look carefully at section 3. They should consider that there is a mechanism here which will allow the government, one issue at a time, to fulfil its promises to the union elite. That is the purpose of the bill; that is the purpose of section 3. It's therefore a section that, if it can't be amended, should be defeated.

So while I like the notion of there being a continuing review of the labour code, I don't like this mechanism. I think it's a mechanism that will simply extend the process, extend a flawed process, and therefore I would encourage members, at least on this side of the House, to vote against section 3. I would encourage those members of the government who think for themselves to vote against section 3. I don't expect that they will be large in number, because the government members have demonstrated a singular lack of ability to think for themselves.

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: The members of the government, particularly the back bench who have the opportunity, are now saying: "Chippy, chippy!" Perhaps they're feeling a bit tender having met with their constituents after the last issue in which they failed to represent their constituents' wishes. Maybe they're feeling a bit uncomfortable about their failure in this House to represent the interests of their constituents, but I would encourage them anyway to take the plunge. Perhaps this time you can redeem yourselves. Perhaps this time you can establish a reputation that would make recall a little less fearful for you, because recall certainly is a fearful threat to the members of the government. I would encourage them, therefore, to consider section 3 carefully, to consider the wishes of their constituents with regard to section 3 and to join with me and others in the opposition in voting against section 3.

L. Hanson: I have quite a simple question for the minister: can the minister tell me what powers section 3 gives him that he doesn't already have?

Hon. M. Sihota: The section is really a carryover from what used to be in section 123. If the point the hon. member wishes to make is that we have the power to make these appointments in any event, I think that is true. At least on the face of it I can't see any argument that says it gives me powers of discretion that don't exist for a minister. But I do want to say this. I think it's important that this kind of provision, nonetheless, be in the legislation, in part because it gives the opposition the opportunity to point to it and put the additional pressure that may be required on the minister to act. I think that's an important vehicle, and we've talked about that in the House today.

To pick up on some of the points the leader of the third party said, I also think it ought to give some comfort to concerned groups out there to know that there is a mechanism by which they can lobby, as independent groups, such as the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, to come to us and say: "Well, if you've got this provision, why don't you utilize it?" It's a lever that's there for those who wish to employ it.

I don't think it's fair to say that it's there for some sinister purpose of trying to get in changes in the future that aren't in there now and are to further an ideological agenda. Quite honestly, I think we all understand the political process. If someone wants to do that, the time to do it is very early in a mandate. It should have been done very early on, and it wasn't in this case. We made a conscious decision to take a different approach, an approach where we said to the parties that we wanted to move away from the adversarial relationship that has existed between management and labour in this province for so long and that we wanted to bring them together and have them cooperate in the drafting of labour legislation to set the tone for the change in that relationship.

You heard that speech from me yesterday; you don't need to hear it again today, except that in the context of this section, what it says is that with the precedent having been set already by us in terms of a broad-based group to do the review, this provision allows for a furtherance of that precedence.

Hon. member, I respect the point that you are making. It is not an invalid point, and I have a pretty good idea of what your next question is going to be as 

[ Page 4113 ]

well. But if you think it through in terms of the political dynamics that I've just laid out, there are some good reasons to keep this kind of provision here.

L. Hanson: I suppose I could ask the minister to answer the question before I ask it if he knows what it's going to be.

We've heard for the last two or three days a lot of reasons why the minister feels that it is not necessary to have certain things in the labour code. Yesterday the members of the third party put forth an amendment that suggested the public interest wasn't recognized as importantly as it should be in a document that has this much effect on the economy and the interests of the public of British Columbia. The minister's reply was to the effect that it is such an obvious need, so why do we have to put it into the legislation? Everybody knows that you have to recognize the public interest; everybody who sits at the bargaining table, regardless of which side they happen to represent, recognizes that. Why do you need to put it into the legislation? It's so obvious.

[4:30]

The members of the Liberal Party suggested an amendment. I don't have the exact wording, but it was the consideration of the economy in the legislation. The minister gave us the same reason: it's so obvious that the economy has to be considered by negotiating parties or by anyone who makes decisions; why would we need to put it into the legislation?

The minister has just admitted that this section 3 really is not needed, because he already has the authority to do all of the things that are in this section 3. But he needs to point it out as a highlight in the bill so that people in British Columbia will recognize that there needs to be an ongoing review of the labour code. I agree that there needs to be an ongoing review of the labour code, but, Mr. Minister, why not be consistent in your arguments? If this needs to be pointed out to the public and has to be in the bill, why don't you agree to pointing out to the citizenry at large the importance of the public interest and the economy in all of those decisions, so that people who are involved not only in the negotiating but in the labour relations board making those decisions are directed and influenced by the issues that we point out in this bill as being important to British Columbians?

I really don't expect an answer from the minister, but by the same token I think it is an argument that the minister will find difficult in light of his previous remarks.

D. Miller: I have been following the debate with interest. Having spent a considerable amount of time in this House some years ago debating Bill 19, along with my colleague the current Minister of Labour, I am somewhat confused with respect to this section and the debate that I've heard.

I wonder if the minister could perhaps explain why the opposition appears to be opposing this clause when it is simply an adaptation -- as the minister has pointed out -- of section 123, which is in the current legislation and was defended by the member for Okanagan-Vernon when he was the Minister of Labour. I'm somewhat puzzled by what appears to be some contradiction. Perhaps the minister might be able to clarify that for me.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me make a couple of points. First of all, I've often said in this House -- or said outside this House; I don't know if I've said it in here -- that the Social Credit opposition is always far more effective than the Liberal one. If I may be truthful about it, the Labour critic from the Social Credit Party has picked up on a point that I thought would be the thrust of the debate in this House. I think it just demonstrates what has been evident to most of us: the Liberal opposition is generally ineffective and doesn't seem to pick up on the points. Having said that....

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, once again the minister digresses and gets seriously off topic. While it's amusing and humorous -- and it's certainly the party line and strategy -- it's not pertinent to this amendment.

Hon. M. Sihota: Believe you me, hon. Chair, it's far more pertinent than ICBC rates and B.C. Hydro and things like that that the hon. member has brought into the debate. It's okay for him to bring issues into debate, but when others make a point that is evident to all of us.... You know, the sting of the comment clearly hurts the rather ineffective performance of the party opposite.

In any event, let me....

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, the minister goes on at some length, but perhaps what he doesn't realize is that he is merely showing himself to be the same type of government that he campaigned so much against.

The Chair: Order!

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, hon. Chair, if you're going to rule me out of order, perhaps you should also rule the minister out of order.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair is bound to enforce the standing orders, which I think have been somewhat ignored in the last little while. I would remind all hon. members that we're in Committee of the Whole. We are to address the specifics of the matter before us and not treat debate as though it were second reading. So I would ask all hon. members to address themselves accordingly. Thank you.

Hon. M. Sihota: In any event, as I was saying, the member for North Coast has raised the other issue which I thought would inevitably arise in the debate, and he has responded to the member for Okanagan-Vernon.

K. Jones: I would like to ask the minister what was on his mind when he brought in section 3(2).

[ Page 4114 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm pleased to see that the most effective member of the opposition has just risen to enter the debate. If you were to ask the member for Langley, you'd find out the answer. She asked me the question about an hour and a half ago, hon. member. It has already been answered.

K. Jones: The minister wants to play around with this without defining what the answer to this question really is. Is that because he doesn't want to answer the question? Is it possible that he doesn't want the light of day to come into what his intentions are: to bring in regulations to extend the role of this act beyond what he's trying to imply is the intention of this act? He is using this route to bring in what he doesn't want to put out so publicly? Is this the real intent behind this?

Hon. M. Sihota: No.

K. Jones: If the minister says that's not the intent, could he please clearly tell us what his intent is with regard to bringing in this set of regulations?

Hon. M. Sihota: The section in question allows the minister to make regulations which are necessary and advisable with respect to the dissemination of submissions and recommendations received from the panel of advisers. That's precisely what the section does.

K. Jones: I'm rather disgusted that the member can do nothing but recite the statement in the clause without giving any amplification of the intention behind it. The whole purpose of this debate is to allow the minister to answer the questions of concern of the people who are representing the public in this House. Surely you should be more responsive to the public's concerns and needs, instead of just playing games.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not playing any games. You asked me what the section is all about. The section gives the minister the power to make regulations with respect to information provided by the advisers. That's what the section says, hon. member. I don't know how much simpler I can make it than that. It just gives the minister the power to make regulations with respect to matters that fall under section 1. There are other provisions for regulations which are similar to this.

K. Jones: You've already got that under the regulatory section, which is to be debated later. Why is it necessary to have it in this section?

The Chair: Before the minister responds, I would point out to hon. members that the questions are in order, but there is a point at which we have to consider whether or not you are becoming repetitious.

Hon. M. Sihota: With regard to the question, it seems to me that the public needs to know what the process will be. In order for the public to know that, regulations need to be passed, which are public -- because they are regulations passed by an order-in-council -- which will then allow you to know what the process employed by the advisers will be. If that's clear to the hon. member.... It simply allows us to tell you, for example, what the time-frame of the process will be.

L. Hanson: Just in case the minister didn't understand my point -- and for the edification of the member for North Coast -- I was not opposed to this section in the legislation as such, because a review is good. I was questioning the minister's consistency in the application of that policy, because the amendments that we presented the other day were also in the old act and had been taken out, but now one that was in the old act is included. I'm just saying that isn't consistent. The minister has hung his hat -- and I know he doesn't wear one -- and used as a reason for that that it's so obvious, it doesn't need to be stated. That was my point -- to make sure that the minister and the member for North Coast understand that.

Hon. M. Sihota: Very quickly, as I said in response to the former minister's first question, you're right: there's an argument to be made that the provision is not required. But for all the reasons that I have talked about, in terms of the politics of the situation and in terms of it serving as a lever to place some pressure on a minister, I think there is reason to keep that in there. It's not superfluous in the same way that I referred to matters yesterday, but I think both of us can appreciate the fact that these types of provisions do allow for pressure to be placed on a minister in a way different than would otherwise be the case. There is an express provision. You can point to it if you think there need to be advisers appointed. So can the official opposition; so can groups outside. It's a lever there that I think is appropriate for that dynamic to take place.

F. Gingell: When one reads this and thinks about what kind of regulations could be made, seeing that there would only be two alternatives, one is: yes, you're going to disseminate them. I wouldn't believe that one would ever for a moment think that the regulations would deal with whether you're going to mail them or send them by courier. How do you disseminate them? Well, you make them public.

The alternative to that is that you don't disseminate them. Surely the minister isn't thinking about suppression of recommendations. It seems to me that there is established practice. When reports come in from such a committee of special advisers, we wanted the report to come to the Legislature. The government has defeated that. It is now going to come to the minister. Surely this section of the act should require the minister to disseminate them, period; not make regulations about whether or not they are disseminated if the minister does respond to that proposition. I wonder if he could just assure me that there will not be any exclusions under the Freedom of Information Act that would stop publication of such reports in this bill.

[4:45]

L. Stephens: I have one question. It's the composition of the committee of the special advisers. Does the 

[ Page 4115 ]

minister have any idea how many there will be? I know you made reference to some of the groups that would be represented. If you could clarify that, please do; and what relationship, if any, would it have to the Labour Relations Board?

Hon. M. Sihota: It has no relationship to the Labour Relations Board. It would allow the government to have as broad a committee as possible. That would be our intention, and indeed that has been our practice.

Section 3 approved on the following division:

On section 4.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to move that section 4 be amended by adding the following subsection (3): "Nothing in this code deprives a person of freedom to express views provided that no undue influence, intimidation, coercion or threats are used."

The amendment to section 4 that we're proposing is merely a clarification of the section and goes to the heart of the rights of employers and employees. It states very clearly that nothing in this code will deprive people of the freedom to express their views provided that no undue influence, intimidation, coercion or threats are used. This certainly ties in when we get into the certification process that will come later. The intent behind this is merely to....

K. Jones: Hon. Chairman, it's getting awfully hard to hear the speaker, and there seems to be a lot of conversation going on privately.

The Chair: Your point is well taken, hon. member. I ask all members to take that under advisement.

G. Farrell-Collins: The intent with this section, of course, is to clarify and to ensure rights to an employee and an employer that arise during the certification or decertification process. It allows the employee, the employer, the organizer or whoever an assurance that they have the right to freedom of speech, to make statements of fact and to bring forward comments they may have, as long as those comments are realistic and fair and do not cause undue intimidation to either side.

The intent of that is to clean up some of the unfair labour practices that we see and to instil that right in the section that defines the rights of employees and employers. It is critical that the right to freedom of speech is stated very clearly and concisely in the section that defines the rights of individuals and employers.

Hon. M. Sihota: We just received this. I asked the member yesterday if he would send us copies of the material he intends to table that is not on the order paper. The member can speak for a few more minutes, and we'll try to listen and analyze it.

G. Farrell-Collins: As the minister well knows, debate in this House does sometimes occur spontaneously, despite what people may think. The intent behind this amendment is merely to ensure that those rights are protected. It's always interesting to have the minister ask the opposition to filibuster for a while while he gets his thoughts together. But I'm glad to support the amendment and make it clear. I apologize for not giving it to the minister earlier, but it's something that just came up in the last little while. There was certainly no disrespect or surprise intended. It's just the dynamics of what takes place.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'd like some direction from the Chair on this point. I would argue that the amendment is out of order. I would draw the Chair's attention to sections 8 and 9 of the bill before the House, which deal materially with the issues raised by the proposed amendment. I suggest to the Chair, with all respect, that the amendment is out of order.

[5:00]

The Chair: It is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment is a duplication. It restates essentially what is contained in sections 8 and 9. On that basis the Chair rules that the amendment is redundant and therefore out of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: If I may, I'd like to speak to the point of order.

The Chair: There is no point of order, and there is no debate on a ruling of the Chair, hon. member, with the greatest of respect. We are now back on section 4.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would like to move the first amendment standing in my name on the order paper. It states:

[ Page 4116 ]

"SECTION 5(2), be amended to read:

(2) If no collective agreement respecting a unit is in force and a complaint is filed with the board alleging that an employee in that unit has been discharged, suspended, transferred or laid off from employment or otherwise disciplined in contravention of this Code, the board shall forthwith inquire into the matter and, if the complaint is not settled or withdrawn, the board shall

(a) commence a hearing on the complaint within 3 working days of its filing,

(b) promptly proceed with the hearing without interruption, except for any necessary adjournments, and

(c) render a decision on the complaint within 2 working days of the completion of the hearing."

That amendment is significant. I can highlight that the only difference from the wording the government has in place is that we're dealing with working days as opposed to calendar days. That's a legitimate amendment. Perhaps it was an oversight by the minister. It's not a huge amendment. We're merely trying to ensure that that's clarified in the bill itself.

The Chair: The amendment appears to be in order.

Hon. M. Sihota: I appreciate the basis on which the hon. member put the amendment before the House. Having said that, I should also be upfront with the hon. member. We actually looked at that amendment and considered accepting it. On reflection I've decided not to, and I'll tell the hon. member why.

An Hon. Member: Surprise, surprise.

Hon. M. Sihota: Look, we looked at it because I thought it raised a legitimate point as to whether or not it would be possible to deal with issues within working days or calendar days. I'm advised that the panelists, when drafting this section, explicitly put their minds to the very issue that the hon. member flags by virtue of this amendment. There was considerable discussion and debate as to whether it should say days or working days. Given the thrust of the section, which deals with prohibitions against dismissal and the exercising of employee rights, it was felt that time was of the essence. Albeit that the absence of the word "working" put certain pressure on the Labour Relations Board, so be it; it was appropriate in this kind of situation.

I think the hon. member would probably agree on reflection, as I did, after having first thought that his amendment should go, that in a case where someone is threatening to dismiss somebody because of their involvement in a certification drive, there really needs to be a hearing of that matter on an expedited basis; otherwise it can really disease it. It was felt that if someone made that application on Friday, they had to have the hearing immediately. We have had a practice in this province of certain matters being heard on an expedited basis. When one reflects on the point the panelists made about the need to make sure that these activities, which can potentially disease a relationship forever, are possible at the front end of a certification process, it was felt that every opportunity should be taken to limit the length of that disease as much as possible. I would hope that with that expression of opinion, the hon. member will withdraw the amendment.

G. Farrell-Collins: I take the minister's comments with all the importance that they were given.

Perhaps a couple of questions to the minister then. I certainly see the intent, upon reflection, as he has also. If we can expedite it to not just be working days but three calendar days regardless, I think that is indeed an improvement. The question I would then have for the minister is: is he willing, and is it his intent, to make available the services of the Labour Relations Board in cases like this on a 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week basis, so that there will be no distinction between Monday to Friday, and Saturday and Sunday, and so we're not putting something in the bill that the operations and the finances of the board perhaps won't be able to live up to? As long as we have his assurances that all resources will be available on a seven-days-a-week basis and that that won't cause any problems and certainly won't deteriorate the quality of the hearings and the decisions that are brought down by the board, then I would have no problem withdrawing the amendment.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, it's up to the Labour Relations Board to structure their procedure as they wish. But they have to do it in compliance with the legislation, and they know what the legislation says here. It's not unusual for the board to hear applications in the evening. I know I've been on the phone with Mr. Lanyon on occasion late at night or over a weekend; I know I've had the privilege of that experience. That's part of their budget considerations when drafting their budget. Obviously we in this House would all hope that there would be very few applications under this section, but the board, in drafting their budget, will have to be mindful that these applications may be coming forward. Indeed, that's what happens. We don't direct them to do that; they know full well that there are implications flowing from the legislation.

G. Farrell-Collins: One quick final question for the minister. Perhaps he can enlighten us on whether or not there would be any increased cost from this and at what level that would be. Would it be insignificant or significant? To what extent would that have an effect?

Hon. M. Sihota: We don't anticipate that there will be any significant or material or discernible increase in the budget.

G. Farrell-Collins: With those comments and the intent of the minister on the record, I would move that the amendment be withdrawn in the hope that in fact it will operate as the minister now intends in his statement.

Motion approved.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have a further amendment to section 5, and it states:

[ Page 4117 ]

"SECTION 5 be amended by the addition of the following subsections:

(3) No trade union and no person acting on behalf of a trade union shall require an employer to terminate the employment of an employee, or otherwise to discriminate against an employee in regard to employment or a condition of employment, because the employee has been expelled or suspended from membership in the trade union, or because membership in the trade union has been denied or withheld from that employee. This section 5(3) shall not apply where the expulsion or suspension from membership, or the denial or withholding of membership, was occasioned by

(a) failure of the employee to pay the periodic dues, assessments and initiation fees uniformly required to be paid by all members of the trade union as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership in the trade union, or

(b) activity by the employee against the trade union contrary to this act."

On the amendment.

G. Farrell-Collins: The intent of this amendment to the section is to further ensure the individual rights of employees in British Columbia. The intent here is to ensure that it's not the union that owns the job but the employee; and as long as the employee is conforming to the standard requirements as far as paying dues, qualifications, etc., that employee will continue to have a job, and it's not up to the union to dismiss in a circumventing manner an employee from a position merely because of union discipline.

I think it's essential that individual rights be respected in this bill -- we've advocated that from day one -- and this amendment will do much more to ensure that the individual rights of employees in a firm are the rights of the employee and not rights to be held by the union or taken away by the union. We strongly feel that it's not up to the union executive or the union administration to hire and fire the employee; it's up to the employee and the employer to do that. As long as the union member is complying with the bare necessities of being in the union -- complying with membership dues, etc., and participating in good standing in that manner -- then the person should not be fearful of losing their job. They should not be fearful of being turfed out because of some problems with union policy or by-laws. All members and all workers should be treated fairly.

Hon. M. Sihota: This provision used to exist -- I guess still technically exists -- in Bill 19 and is now proposed to be removed and replaced by additional provisions. Those additional provisions are found in sections 7, 9 and 10 of the legislation, which we'll debate later. Because they've been restructured in intentions in those provisions, there's no need to have this provision here.

G. Farrell-Collins: There have been substantial changes to this bill. I know the minister has dealt with some of these changes and concerns in sections 7 through 9, and I know it has been his intent to try and deal with them in some fashion. Once again, it's important that these individual rights be explicitly laid out in the bill in clear terms so all employees know that they have a right to their jobs and that it's not up to the union of which they're a member to fire them.

That hiring and firing relationship exists between the employer and the employee, not between the union and the employee. The minister is well aware, I am sure, of numerous instances in the past -- and I certainly hear these types of complaints on an ongoing basis in my constituency office -- of union members who feel that they have been treated unfairly. The intent of this section is to ensure in very clear terms that those rights still rest with the individual, not in a sort of intangible way as provided in some of the other sections but in a concrete, tangible way.

The wording of the section is critical. The wording of the replacement of the subsection is critical to the intent and the understanding of that section. The provisions the minister has tried to make to give assurance to those employees is simply not good enough. This must be stated in very clear terms, and it must be stated in this section.

F. Gingell: I really would like to encourage all members of this Legislature to carefully consider the thoughts and intent behind this amendment. It adds to section 5 the important rights and freedoms that every citizen of Canada deserves. Surely we cannot disagree with a provision that protects the rights of someone who legally and properly has a job and is employed by a corporation or business that has a collective agreement. Surely we should protect that person from being fired from that job by the union. That is, in effect, what is allowed -- and possible, if this amendment isn't supported and passed. This amendment would protect an employee from being fired from a job by his union rather than by his employer.

[5:15]

The person may be a first-class worker, do excellent work and be satisfactory in all regards to his employer but lose his job because of some dispute he may have with his union that has caused him to be dismissed from the union. That simply doesn't seem to be the kind of provision that we, in a country that believes in democratic freedoms and the rights of individuals, should be subjected to.

G. Farrell-Collins: I notice the member from Okanagan-Vernon wishes to speak, and I yield to him.

L. Hanson: This amendment is the exact wording that was in Bill 19 and was put there for what we considered to be a very valid reason at the time. Over the time that Bill 19 has been in force, I think it has been a rather effective tool to ensure that the individual rights are respected.

Maybe the minister can tell to me where in this act there is protection for the individual against a union requiring the individual to be fired for some contravention of, say, union bylaws or crossing a picket line. There are a number of reasons why a member can fall out of favour with union management. Can the minister tell me where in the bill, if this is not included, that 

[ Page 4118 ]

individual has the protection that this amendment would provide?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member talks about the provision being similar or identical to Bill 19, and he is right; that is indeed the case. I should advise the House that there has been no case since the introduction of Bill 19 where an order has been granted with regard to a complaint laid under that section. In fairness, that's not to say that there haven't been issues before the board. It's just that there has never been an order granted with regard to that issue.

The hon. member asks where. I think that it's fair to say that.... I don't want this comment to be construed in the wrong way by a future board, so I'm trying to choose my words carefully, which is the reason for the hesitation. There are provisions elsewhere, particular in section 10, that deal with natural justice. The concept of natural justice is a very broad one that, in a very liberal way, has been interpreted by tribunals, administrative fact-finders and the courts to provide rights for individuals which are not normally amplified in a statement of individual rights.

Let's take, for example, our Charter of Rights. I don't believe -- and I'm functioning here from memory -- that our Charter of Rights talks about the right to a hearing, the right to cross-examine, the right to know the case against you or the right to present your case. Those types of rights are usually not enumerated in a normal statement of rights. They aren't in the Charter, to the best of my recollection, and I don't think they were under the Bill of Rights as it existed federally.

So the concept of natural justice is a very broad one which endeavours to provide protections for individuals and places an onus on organizations, as section 10 does later on on trade unions, which have constitutions and bylaws, to ensure that their constitution and bylaws are subject to the rules of natural justice. I think that that provision provides additional scope in terms of the protection for an individual, which one could argue may not prevail at the end of the day. I would respect the discretion of the board in this regard, which is why my comments are somewhat guarded. But it could perhaps provide an even greater level of protection than this amendment does.

From both a philosophical and an intellectual point of view, I think one could make the argument that the proposed amendment and the old section within Bill 19 are an intrusion on a specific point into a trade union's activities. We have taken out that sort of pierced intrusion on that issue and have actually provided the individual with a broader set of rights and given the board the ability to have a broader set of considerations before it when it hears that kind of application. In other words, as I read section 10, if someone feels that their vocation is being threatened by the action of a union, nothing would deprive that person of the opportunity to seek an application pursuant to section 10. That right to be heard, the right to make their case, the right to make their argument with respect to any matter, would be covered by the principles of natural justice. And a board would have to determine to what extent, if any, the principles of natural justice were violated.

When I make these statements in the House, I'm very mindful that people can interpret section 10. I don't want anything that I have said to be read in the future as meaning that the discretion of the board has somehow been fettered by comments that have been made here. I think the board ought to have the liberty to make its own determinations of how the principles of natural justice should be interpreted in respect of disputes relating to matters in the constitution of a trade union and in matters relating to discipline by a trade union. I draw to the hon. member's attention the fact that the word "discipline" does appear in the proposed section 10.

I think, in sum, that we have created a provision in section 10 that places considerable onus upon a union to respect the natural justice rights of an individual. I think the fear that some in this chamber may have.... I don't remember word for word what your question was, and I don't want the word "fear" to go to your question. But I understand generally what the fear is, and I would argue that that fear is captured by the natural justice provisions.

If I may say one thing further, it is that I would obviously expect a board to consider natural justice principles with regard to discipline matters. So in response to the hon. member's question, I think the answer lies in a liberal but not generous reading of section 10.

L. Hanson: I appreciate that. The minister, of course, is a member of the bar and has some experience and knowledge that I'm not equipped with. But by the same token, to me the guarantee of natural justice is far, far removed from the guarantee of an individual's right to work, to a job, to employment to support their family. While I respect the minister's suggestion that clause 10, in its reference to natural justice, does provide that protection, I would suggest to the minister that there are ample disciplines available to the union when dealing with an errant member, without that individual having to lose his or her livelihood. While I respect the minister's response, I can't accept it as being as protective and as much of a guarantee of the individual's rights as this amendment would make it.

I suspect that in the process of natural justice.... I don't know if there are other lawyers in the room. The minister, with his education, should certainly be more aware of that than most of us. He also would have to respect and acknowledge that sometimes the process of natural justice is long, tedious and very expensive. To rely on that for the protection of an individual who may lose his or her livelihood as a result of some disagreement within the union organization is just not fair. We as legislators should not put the public at that risk.

Mr. Minister, while I acknowledge your suggestion that clause 10 would look after that, I certainly would have to disagree, because the process to arrive at that natural justice is very lengthy and costly, and in many cases it's years before there is finally a resolution, during which time all this pain and suffering can go on. To me, this is such an important issue that you and the opposition should support this. It's a basic right of the individual that we're trying to protect.

[ Page 4119 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I listened very closely to the minister's argument. It was a fairly philosophical one, and I'd like perhaps to take the other tack on it. The minister said that there are laws and that the principle of natural justice would be sufficient to protect the rights of the individual from undue and unfair discipline or other disciplinary actions brought forth by a union towards its member, and that somehow the amendment we're proposing, which clearly states the limits to which a union may go to dismiss someone from their job, is not required. I would argue this statement. The minister used a similar argument in answering my question and the questions from the member for Okanagan-Vernon. He used the example of why the Charter of Rights doesn't specifically state that certain rights accrue to an individual as far as having a case heard, presenting evidence, etc., and why that wasn't necessary.

[5:30]

Well, that's half the argument, and one could argue just as easily that while the principle of natural justice exists and while we have common law in this country, we in this nation still decided to go with the Charter of Rights that would very clearly delineate the rights and privileges of individuals. That was a conscious decision that was taken, and it was intended to highlight specifically what rights were.

In fact, it has changed the effect of law in this country, and it has had a more profound effect on the legal system in this country than many had initially anticipated. The delineation of individual rights in very precise wording is important and significant, and it goes further than just the provisions of natural justice. That is why it needs to be included here.

The member for Okanagan-Vernon brought up a point that is important to all of us. We have probably all had comments. I'm sure the minister, with his legal background and as a member for the area that he is, has had people come into his constituency office who have had problems with their unions as far as fair representation goes and who may have encountered the specific problems that we're trying to solve with section 5.

The fact is that these people don't have a lot of money or a lot of recourse to natural justice. I would say that natural justice and justice naturally take a long time, and it doesn't always come to fruition in the short term. In fact, many complaints that I have had in my constituency office go back a decade or more, and people have had their lives drastically changed because of dismissal from jobs, which they felt were secure, due to discrepancies with their unions. I think that's critical.

So you have clearly delineated in section 5 the fact that individuals have a right to their job. As long as they comply with the basic requirements of being a member of a trade union, that person should be entitled to keep their job. Yes, indeed, other disciplinary action that a union may take should comply with the principles of natural justice. But the right to a job -- the right to maintain employment -- is so critical. It is the basic right. Once that right has been given, then yes, section 10 would complement that and would help to define the parameters within which discipline could take place in a trade union. But it could not ever rise to the point of actually dismissing someone from their job.

The intent behind section 5 is very clear. With all due respect to the minister's arguments, which I thought were lucid and appropriate, the intent of this amendment is quite different than the broader parameters he has implemented in section 10; rather, it deals specifically with the right to continue employment as long as they comply with the basic provisions of remaining as a member of the trade union. That's the reason.

I'd be glad to hear from the minister as to whether or not he agrees with those distinctions, whether or not he agrees that parameters should be placed in section 5 and then the broader implementation of natural justice as it applies to other union discipline could be considered within section 10.

Hon. M. Sihota: One of the leading Canadian cases on natural justice -- and I don't have it before me; I'm sort of functioning from memory on this aspect of the fact pattern -- was at the University of Regina or the University of Saskatchewan; anyway, it was in the flatlands, or the Prairies. The case involved a student who was being expelled by the university, and the board of governors had made a decision, if my memory serves me right -- I see the justice critic from the Liberals here; he may remember the case as well -- to uphold, on the part of the Senate, the expulsion of the student. The issue arose in terms of what protection that student was entitled to from being denied an education and the livelihood that comes from it, because of an expulsion -- which is no different than the fact pattern we're talking about here in terms of the loss of a job. Indeed, the case became the leading case with respect to natural justice and amplified upon the natural justice rights which exist to individuals. And I think that case can be used to make the argument that in this legislation the protections which are being afforded to the individual go beyond the protection which exists under Bill 19. I think the hon. member has to understand that when we talk about natural justice, those words immediately, within our legal jurisprudence, trigger a certain set of alarm bells in terms of what has to be provided for. One of the tests when dealing with natural justice items is for the tribunal to take a look at the harm that's being done to the individual by the action that's being taken. It actually increased the requirement for natural justice or the indicia of natural justice or the test to determine whether or not the rights of natural justice were applied, based on the extent of the harm occasioned to the individual involved. Obviously here, as the hon. member correctly mentions, the harm is significant in terms of loss of job, and therefore I would assume, case law being what it was when I last did this work, that the test would be fairly high in terms of according to that individual the rights of natural justice.

The tribunal also has the right -- and, I won't argue, the obligation -- to take a look at what other remedies were available to deal with the situation. I wouldn't want to mislead anybody. I don't think it should be left unsaid that they aren't hearings. The current provision in Bill 19 triggers hearings. As I said earlier on, there are 

[ Page 4120 ]

indeed hearings which occur. So if the hon. member thinks having the provision he's recommending will prevent hearings, it won't. There will be hearings. There have been hearings, as I said at the outset, under the current legislation from the IRC. So you're not going to solve that problem. But given the case law with regard to natural justice, the individual has some significant rights -- some remarkable rights when you really think about it -- on the precedent that I just cited for you. I won't underestimate the ability of any counsel acting for anybody on those kinds of cases to bring to the attention of the board the harm that would be caused if the person lost their job if the board hadn't considered it. I hope that will clarify and attend to the concerns the hon. member has.

V. Anderson: I'm afraid that in listening to the speaker, I became more aware of the need for this amendment than before, because he was so careful in his presentation to say: "I think this may be the case, but I don't want to bind the board." He also implied that there was a concern of the employee that needed to be taken into account. With that I would heartily agree.

He went on to suggest that the reason this amendment was not included in Bill 84 as presented was that it might interfere with the work and the power of the unions. As I understand the purpose of this section, it is the "Prohibition against dismissals, etc. for exercising employee rights." That is a protection for the individual employees. His argument that this was left out because it was an advantage for the union rather than the employee clearly indicates to me the very reason that this needs to be part of the section.

As has been pointed out, to force people to go to natural justice, which may or may not give any protection -- as even the minister himself has very clearly stated -- is to put them into a legal situation that is time-consuming, costly and just impossible for many people. We're talking about people today who may not have a great deal of formal education and so may have difficulty expressing themselves. We're talking about people who come from many different cultural backgrounds and are not used to the confrontational kind of legal system we have grown up with here in our country. To suggest that these people should have to be challenging a court system, a tribunal and appeal for what really should be written in.... If he was following natural justice, I think it would be only natural and just to have this section 3 amendment written into the bill itself. That's the natural, just thing to do to make clear an employer's responsibility, an employee's responsibility and a union's responsibility.

I hope the minister will reconsider the validity of this section, re-incorporate it into the bill and support the amendment. According to the minister, the very fact that it has not had a charge brought in this case by a board probably indicates the validity of having it there in the first place. If you have it there, people take it into account. If not, people will press the limits and say: "We'll take our chance, as a union, of having this person dismissed, and maybe that natural justice will work on our side as a union. At least we've got nothing to lose by it." I would affirm the need for this amendment to be affirmed in this bill.

Hon. M. Sihota: I think the hon. member underestimates the impact of the words "natural justice." I think he was concerned about some of the hesitancy in terms of the language that I was employing. I was doing that for two reasons. The first was that I was a little bit worried about setting precedents for the board when it deals with these kinds of matters and relies, as some may want to do, on the debate that happens here. Secondly, I was really reaching into my mind to recollect the fact pattern in the decisions with regard to administrative law.

As it's been a while since I've practised in that area, that explains some of the hesitancy. But that hesitancy should not be interpreted as in some way being dismissive of the concern or as camouflaging the fact that there's a need to protect individuals from undue discrimination or intimidation. One has to take seriously any situations which may deny an individual a livelihood. If anything, the record here will show that I've made it clear to the board that we expect them to take these types of matters seriously. What I've tried to present to you in the course of this argument is the view that natural justice rights may afford greater protection. In other words, going in that direction, through a more generic statement of rights and a more specific one, may actually provide a wider scope of protection for an individual. That same individual you are concerned about, who may in some way be aggrieved, may well not be aggrieved but may in fact have better protection under the section that we're proposing.

I hear you, and obviously I've thought about the same point: if there haven't been any orders granted, does that mean the section has been very effective? But when you look at it, as I said also, there have been hearings under this section. So don't think that having that kind of section will prevent hearings and the cost of those. They're going to happen. They'll happen under the proposed legislation as much as they happened under the previous legislation. We're not going to be able to avoid lawyers or costly hearings. Regrettably, that's a fact of life.

[5:45]

I see that your leader is just twitching to get into this debate.

G. Wilson: I never twitch.

Hon. M. Sihota: You are. I saw you. He's biting his fingernails to get into this debate.

The Chair: Order!

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry, I digress.

You have to weigh what's proposed elsewhere in the legislation against the provision that's being debated now in the form of the amendment. On balance, I would argue that the weight of the argument is in favour of going the route we've suggested. I'm sure that comes as no surprise to your critic.

[ Page 4121 ]

V. Anderson: I hear the hon. minister, and what comes to my mind is that if I'm trying to have fire protection in my house, I protect the doors so I can get out and I have a fire extinguisher and a rope ladder. The more protection I have, the better. To say that you put all your protection in natural justice when you could have protection prior to natural justice and then the natural justice protection could be added on to this.... That makes sense. I agree that we're not talking about hearings; there will always be hearings. Lawyers and other people will make sure we have hearings. But we're trying to say that we need initial protections, and if that first protection, this clause in the amendment, breaks down, then I would go along with the hon. minister that natural justice is there to be amplified and to add to the protection. But you don't take away the first line of defence because you have a line of defence further on. And, hon. minister, I think you have clearly stated that this amendment could very well be a first line of defence -- not a final line, because there are no final lines. But it could very well be a first line of defence very simply and very easily put in place. Even by his own admission, I think the minister has said implicitly, if not explicitly, that this has an advantage to which natural justice could be added, and I hope he will reconsider and affirm that amendment in this act.

G. Wilson: In order to save my fingers I needed to get into this debate, according to the minister opposite, who mentions that we forgot to mention the smoke alarm. Quite clearly, with the kind of policies we see coming from the members opposite, smoke alarms are more than necessary now in the province of B.C.

But let's speak specifically to this amendment. I'd like to reiterate what our member was saying with respect to the need to have a first-line defence. I think the minister would understand that the amendment being proposed is an excellent opportunity to put into the act itself a provision for first-line defence for working women and men in B.C. It would seem to me that rather than wait until you have a situation that may in fact be advanced into a question of hearings, where you need to get lawyers involved, the language of this will, again, provide protections for the individual, for the employees, which otherwise is not clear and is open to considerable latitude in terms of legal interpretation. What I'm hearing the minister say is that it's okay to allow the legal interpretation to proceed and to carry on but that he's not prepared to put in place language that more specifically provides the kind of defences that may be necessary for individual employees who may find themselves subjected to the kinds of issues that we need. Hon. Chair, if I can speak to the minister through the back of the Minister of Finance, let me say that the minister would recognize that the language here is clearly an advance in this bill for the individual working woman or man whom this government seems to have been prepared to shunt into the rights strictly of the union. I would think that the minister, in order to prove the words he uttered in debate on section 2 with respect to finding other provisions for the protection of the employee, would want to demonstrate that clearly by accepting this amendment.

So we expect that the minister would acknowledge that this is an advance in the protection of the rights of working women and men in the province of British Columbia. It is a positive amendment that does not in any way change the substance of the intent of the bill, but it provides a first-line defence, as the member for Vancouver-Langara suggested. I would think that this minister, in taking the responsible act, would want to advise his colleagues in government to support the amendment.

G. Farrell-Collins: We've asked this question a number of times, and perhaps the minister didn't hear it because the Minister of Finance was standing in front of him in his usual manner. The question that we're trying to get an answer for is.... While I agree with his arguments that the provision of natural justice is a benefit and an improvement on what was there within certain capacities of discipline and within the practices of a trade union in its internal affairs, the amendment that we've proposed to section 5 does something quite different. It provides the shell around which there are certain very clear limits to what a union may do. The intent here is to make it very clear in section 5 that no union may request an employer to fire an employee because of some internal union dispute. That is crystal clear. That would ensure that a union would not even take that step and try to bring forward that type of recommendation to an employer, because it's crystal clear that it's going to take an adjudicator or a member of the Labour Relations Board all of about five seconds to come to a decision on it. It's not going to cost any money; you don't even need to hire lawyers for this one. All you have to do is open up the act, look at section 5(3) and say: "You can't do that." The employer could even look at it and say: "You can't do that."

I would argue that the reason there have been very few cases heard under that section is that it's extremely effective. In fact, it ensures in crystal-clear terms that a union would never, or rarely ever, even make that request. The advantage to that -- to the minister, who once again is not paying attention, so no wonder he finds it difficult to answer questions.... It's important that those rights of the individual be protected. Under the amendment we've made to section 5(3), it would be virtually impossible, or highly rare, as the minister said earlier, for a union to go to an employer and ask for the dismissal of an employee because of some internal union matter. It simply wouldn't be done, because they know that the employer would simply refuse.

Under the provisions in section 10, now the employer has to look at his Labour Relations Code and say: what the heck is natural justice? How many employers or employees in the province know the definition of natural justice?

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, the minister does. Good for him, because he obviously spent a lot on his education. I'm glad he at least got that out of it. I know he failed Press Releases 101, but at least he passed Natural Justice 101. I wonder if the minister took 

[ Page 4122 ]

natural justice into consideration when he released those press releases.

The provisions for natural justice in the bill that the minister keeps referring to as we debate this amendment are not nearly as crystal clear, as definite and as defined as the amendment to section 5 is. The intent there is to ensure that an employee or a union coming to an employer with a complaint about an employee, asking for their dismissal, would get a downright no from the employer. It wouldn't even come into consideration to fire that person because the union asked for it, because the employer would very clearly know that that's against the rules, against the law and impossible.

If we go with just natural justice, the employer now has to sit there and say: well, gee, what is natural justice? Is it natural justice that an employee can or can't be fired? Is this disciplinary matter something that natural justice will decide is not good enough and the employee should keep on his job? It will probably take the employer some time to figure it out. They'd have to pick up the phone and phone their lawyer. They'd have to get a comment from their lawyer. The lawyer would have to think about it, investigate the case and they'd have to go before a labour relations board, and on and on. It's such a cumbersome process. All we are trying to do here is ensure that fundamental individual right is maintained for that person and that it will not be impinged upon and that it's done in crystal-clear terms.

Given the time, I move the committee rise and report progress.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada