1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1992
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 7, Number 15
[ Page 4627 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
MINISTER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND O'CONNOR CASE
G. Wilson: My question today is to the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. The minister acknowledges that he communicated with the Attorney General with respect to action in the O'Connor case and asked that the Attorney General take appropriate action. Could the minister tell us specifically what the appropriate action was that he requested the Attorney General to take?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have no comment on this issue, which is before the courts.
G. Wilson: Supplementary, then, to the Attorney General. With respect to the communication that the Attorney General had with the minister, would the Attorney General, first of all, acknowledge that he had such communication, and tell this House specifically what appropriate action he was requested to take by the minister?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Ordinarily I would be inclined to not make much comment about a matter which is presently before the courts. I am, however, going to attempt to answer this question, because there is a fair amount of public comment around the issue, and I think it's important that as much as possible, as much as we can say be in the public domain.
The Minister of Economic Development, in his capacity as MLA for the Cariboo-Chilcotin area, had a meeting earlier this year with many of the people involved indirectly in this particular issue. I think it was drawn to his attention that a letter had been written to me requesting that certain considerations be looked at with respect to the case.
Whenever a letter is written to me on a matter that's before the courts or under investigation, the letter is immediately, without my knowledge, referred -- I'm going to take a moment on this, hon. Speaker; I think it's important -- to the criminal justice branch. I don't see the letter; it goes directly to the criminal justice branch of the ministry. No letter was sent by the Minister of Economic Development. The only letter that exists in respect of this is the letter that came from -- and I'm not sure of the precise name of the group -- a native group in the Williams Lake area. Let me repeat again: no letter or communication came from the minister.
G. Wilson: A final supplementary, then, to the Minister of Economic Development. Will the minister tell us if he has had subsequent communication with the members of his constituency who initiated this letter? If he has, would he tell us what was communicated to them?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. member.
Unfortunately, hon. member, the Chair cannot determine that that question does fall within the area of administrative responsibility of the minister.
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FOR
O'CONNOR CASE
A. Warnke: The question I want to put is to the Attorney General. Since his announcement, the terms of reference given to Malcolm Macaulay, the special prosecutor looking into an appeal in the O'Connor case, have been reduced, resulting from a perceived conflict of interest. Will the Attorney General consider replacing Mr. Macaulay with someone who has no perceived conflict of interest, who could look at the prospects for an appeal and who could get to the bottom of the whole Crown counsel handling of the O'Connor case?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's important for members of the House to be reminded, as I have reminded them on previous occasions on this issue, that appointments of special prosecutors are made by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General of the criminal justice branch. Those appointments are not made by the Deputy Attorney General or the Attorney General, but rather by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General. The Assistant Deputy Attorney General appointed Mr. Macaulay to consider our position in respect of an appeal. That consideration is now underway, and I want to make no further comment about it at this time.
On the question that is an inference about what further activity may occur following the consideration of an appeal, I will have something to say about that when the appeal question is decided.
A. Warnke: A supplementary, again to the Attorney General. It's a question that the public is certainly asking. And since there seems to be some perception of the ministry being impaired in its ability to process this case, is the Attorney General satisfied that his assistant deputy ministers and Deputy Attorney General and so forth...? It seems they kept him out of the picture on the progress, or lack of it, of the O'Connor case. I'm wondering whether the Attorney General is satisfied that he has been kept abreast of the O'Connor case?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I would encourage the official opposition critic to read the Crown Counsel Act. In doing so, he would recognize that the conduct of prosecutions in this province is the exclusive responsibility of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General. In fact, the act goes so far as to make reference to media communications around matters relating to prosecutions being also the responsibility of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General.
[ Page 4628 ]
PUBLIC SERVICE SALARIES
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. The doctors in this province have been asked to accept a package which would include a two-year freeze on their rates, then to be followed by a series of increases consistent with the growth in the economy. The doctors might be more receptive to this kind of proposition if they understood that the government was also serious about controlling public sector salary increases. Will the Premier immediately impose a two-year wage freeze on public sector salaries, and institute a compensation fairness program which would limit future increases to the average increases in the private sector?
[2:15]
Hon. M. Harcourt: On the issue of the negotiations with the doctors, I'll take that question on notice for the Minister of Health; I'm sure the leader of the third party understands that that is under her jurisdiction.
On the issue of the Compensation Fairness Act, I think the member is still fighting the last election, which he lost.
J. Weisgerber: Yes, an election that all British Columbians lost as well.
A supplementary, hon. Speaker. First of all, I would have expected the Premier to acknowledge that he was responsible for all of the activities of his government. It's disappointing that he chose that action. Nevertheless, this government has done absolutely nothing to control increases in government spending and in the deficit. The cuts announced by the Minister of Finance recently are nothing but a sham. Will the Premier stand up to his Minister of Finance and Minister of Labour and make his own decisions and follow through on his commitment to freeze public sector wages?
Hon. M. Harcourt: This government is carrying out the election commitment we made to deal with the huge increase in expenditures that occurred during the leader of the third party's previous time in government. It seems that the leader of the third party has what's called wilful blindness. He has wiped his mind clear of the 12 and 13 percent increases the previous Social Credit government was introducing into this province every year, which were fiscally reckless and which caused the province to spend at an increase of 12 to 13 percent a year when the economy was growing at 2, 3 or 4 percent a year. Clearly we're going to make sure that those kinds of reckless days are behind us forever.
J. Weisgerber: The confusion in this House appears to be on the part of the Premier. The years of 2 and 3 percent growth in the economy didn't start until his government was elected. Will the Premier take some action to deal with the growing deficit in this province? Will he make a commitment, as he did at the B.C. Federation of Labour convention, to cap public sector wages?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Not only does the leader of the third party question the wisdom of the voters in the last election.... The voters make that decision. It's up to the voters to decide who will be in this Legislature. It's not up to the leader of the third party to second-guess the citizens of British Columbia.
I can tell you that we are going to carry out our commitment, which is to make sure that jobs are the major focus of this government. People have to understand that there's only so much money -- unlike the previous government, which threw money around recklessly in trying to get re-elected -- that our taxpayers can afford. I sent the message loud and clear not just to the doctors, but to the B.C. Federation of Labour and the business leaders of this province, that our citizens want us to spend smarter -- not more, as under Social Credit.
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
J. Tyabji: My question is for the Minister of Women's Equality. Today we saw that she is planning to bring in new quotas with regard to hiring practices for civil servants.
Hon. Speaker, the top NDP political appointments are Marc Eliesen at $195,000; Wilson Parasiuk at $155,000; Stan Lanyon, Bob Williams, Tom Gunton, Richard Gathercole, John Pollard, John Walsh, Evan Lloyd and Ron Johnson. There's a startling similarity in the top-money political patronage appointments of the NDP.
My question to the Minister of Women's Equality is: why is there a double standard? Why does the civil service have to stick to quotas, when the NDP political pork-barrel doesn't? All these top appointments are the same.
Hon. P. Priddy: I think that this government's commitment to employment equity has been stated clearly and consistently. It's a priority that we identified in opposition, and it has been there from the beginning of our term. I would suggest that the hon. member has not been correctly tracking the number of appointments in government, because there is an increase. If you look at women in upper management positions in government, there is an increase in all but one of the senior management levels. So I think that the hon. member ought to do more thorough research in that respect.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, again, the question I have to the Minister of Women's Equality is with regard to the quotas that are going to be introduced in the civil service. We have reports that over 37,000 people could be affected by this. Would the minister please state for the House whether this is going to be a move for equality of opportunity or an introduction of a new form of discrimination?
Hon. P. Priddy: I think that for people who have researched and read the experiences of employment equity across North America -- across the United States and Canada -- employment equity is about ending discrimination; it is not about discrimination. We have a
[ Page 4629 ]
committee with representation from government and unions for our government, because we have a public service initiative to have unions and government working together towards producing a workable policy and practice for this government. It's important that we have included unions in developing employment equity practices, and we've got the foundation of this government's commitment and the unions' commitment to do that. It is about hiring qualified people to do the job, and it's about ending the discrimination and barriers that people have historically faced in this province in working with government.
LABOUR DISPUTES IN COAL INDUSTRY
Hon. M. Sihota: For some time now the government has been concerned about developments in and the plight of the coal industry here in British Columbia. Significant structural changes have occurred in the industry at Quintette, at Byron Creek and at Line Creek. More recently, major efforts have been made by government in conjunction with the private sector to stabilize the ownership of the Balmer and Greenhills mines. These changes are largely completed, and my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has completed a trade mission to Japan and Korea to promote our coal and to assure our customers of our reliability as a supplier in the years ahead. With markets secured and production revived, the economy of the province will be improved and our attention can be focused on specific problems within the industry.
However, two labour relations issues demand our attention. The first is in Elkford where the dispute between Fording Coal and the United Steelworkers of America has now entered its eighth month. Last week I met with the parties involved in that dispute and advised them of our concern over their inability to resolve their differences. I wish to advise the House today that both parties have agreed to put final positions before Mr. Vince Ready, a mediator skilled in these areas. I've asked Mr. Ready to provide the parties with his recommendations for resolution of the dispute within the next two weeks. This government expects that both parties will give Mr. Ready's recommendations serious and positive consideration. I therefore urge the employer and the trade union to examine Mr. Ready's proposals completely and comprehensively, with a view to resolving a dispute that has gone on for far too long.
Hon. Speaker, the second issue concerns the Greenhills mine, recently purchased by Fording Coal Ltd. Since the acquisition of the mine, Fording Coal Ltd. has commenced advertising for jobs formerly held by members of the Greenhills Workers' Association. Because Fording has advertised vacancies in Alberta and British Columbia, workers who were formerly employed by Greenhills fear that they will not be provided employment at the mine when it reopens. Many of those workers have considerable seniority. Those workers and their families have invested their lives in the mine and in the communities in which they live.
Fording is well aware of the provisions of Bill 19. Bill 19 allows a collective agreement to lapse once an operation is bankrupt. Under Bill 19, therefore, Fording is not obliged to respect the seniority of those previously employed at Greenhills and is not obliged to offer employment to those workers. Because of Fording's decision to advertise vacancies in Alberta, and because of the provisions of Bill 19, former employees and their families are properly concerned that they may not be rehired. This government is deeply concerned over the tensions that are evident in the Elk Valley today and the potential for violence should Bill 19 be used to avoid collective bargaining responsibilities.
Bill 84 prevents an employer from using bankruptcy as a method to avoid obligations to workers who have a stake in the mine and its future. The current actions of Fording are therefore at odds with the intent of the new labour code, and especially its requirement that a new owner honour seniority rights and conduct its hiring to give preference to those workers who have served the mine the longest. The best way to minimize potential violence is for Fording to respect the contribution of those employees and their families.
As this government has made clear on many occasions, business must pay its fair share of taxes, maintain a clean environment and treat its employees with respect and fairness. The proposed bypassing of the employees' representative shows neither fairness nor respect. We have therefore expressed to Fording management that they should now deal with former employees in a fashion that is consistent with the intent of the new labour code.
Today I am asking Mr. Brian Foley, chair of the disputes resolution division of the Industrial Relations Council, to convene a meeting with the Greenhills Workers' Association and Fording Coal Ltd. as soon as possible. This vital dialogue is necessary for labour relations to be developed in a harmonious way and to allow for the mine to reopen in a speedy and positive fashion.
G. Farrell-Collins: In response to the ministerial statement by the Minister of Labour, I have a few fairly basic comments. The first is that I am relieved that the minister has finally taken some action in this area. Given that the opposition has been asking these questions for some months, and given that this dispute has gone on for seven months, I think it is well beyond the time that the minister should have become involved in trying to settle this dispute. It's good that it's finally happening.
My only question with regard to timing is that perhaps the minister wanted to see his labour legislation through before he took action in the Greenhills area, rather than have the labour legislation that is already in place. I am a little skeptical. I am curious as to the intent of the timing -- the length of time it has taken the minister to finally come to some intervention in this dispute. Seven months is far too long for the people of Elk Valley. If they look at it carefully and see what the minister has and has not done for the past
[ Page 4630 ]
seven months, perhaps they will also be a little skeptical of these new announcements today.
With regard to the provisions of successorship, which the minister brought up in the second part of his ministerial statement, it's also important for the minister to take note that Bill 84 has not passed, despite the minister's wishes to the contrary. I would advise him not to anticipate the legislation by imposing limits on what's taking place at Greenhills. Once this bill has passed, he can act on that.
[2:30]
J. Weisgerber: The Minister of Labour deliberately overlooks the issue that is most important in this case. Had it not been for Bill 84, the Jim Pattison Group and, later, Luscar would already have resolved this issue. If there is a problem -- and perhaps there is at Greenhills -- it's because of Bill 84, not in spite of it. The minister cleverly tries to portray Bill 19 as the villain here, but the reality is that the problem is with his own legislation. We saw and heard, on the tabling of Bill 84, the Jim Pattison Group announce that they were no longer interested in Greenhills.
We know also that, had Bill 84 passed, there is every likelihood that the union in place at Fording's other operations would have been imposed on the workers at Greenhills, rather than their association continuing to function. What we have here is a little bit of rather transparent damage control by the minister, because I believe, first of all, that Fording is here now only because the government has already scared away two buyers. I also have confidence that Fording will look at the issues at Greenhills, deal with them in a responsible way and consider the interests of the employees. Hopefully, they will not see their futures dashed because of the implementation of Bill 84, which is the villain in the Greenhills issue.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
MINISTRY REORGANIZATION
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: A question regarding reorganization of my ministry was raised by the member for Surrey-White Rock and taken on notice last week. First, the hon. member referred to the elimination of 22 government agents. The reality is that 17 deputy government agent positions are being eliminated. These positions will be filled by regional development officers. The member suggests that the 50 FTEs now being placed in the regions are new positions. What we have done is combine the existing 16 regional staff positions with the 17 deputy government agent slots and move 17 more staff positions from Victoria, for a net total of 50 staff in the regions.
The restructuring has reduced overall salary expenditures for the ministry by $500,000, while at the same time it will inject $1.3 million in salary and office expenditures into the regions. The restructuring of the regional division will transfer resources and staff to where they're needed most -- in the regions -- and it will result in a ministry better suited to the new mandate of investment promotion, trade and economic policy development and regional community economic development.
With respect to the appointments, 75 percent of the positions in the ministry will be filled by current ministry employees. The remaining 25 percent are being filled by the traditional public service process, which the member knows does not allow patronage appointments. All positions to be filled were posted according to the government personnel services division procedures and policies, pursuant to the Public Service Act.
Hon. G. Clark tabled the report of payments made under the Crown Proceeding Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992, in accordance with section 15(2) of that act.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I'd ask leave to table the interim report of the Korbin Commission of Inquiry into the Public Service and Public Sector.
Leave granted.
Hon. G. Clark: Committee on Bill 84.
LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)
The House in committee; E. Barnes in the chair.
Sections 69 to 71 inclusive approved.
On section 72.
G. Farrell-Collins: I imagine that we shall be spending some time on this section, given its contentious nature. I would say that the essential services provision, which is the section we're dealing with, has caused a high level of concern among the public. It has certainly been one of the issues that we would call contentious.
As many people know -- and certainly the Minister knows -- there have been some changes to the old act. In fact, the minister has, particularly, removed a number of things from the bill. Where it used to say that essential services were those that included risks to health, safety, welfare and education and an economic threat to the province, the government has now removed education as an essential service and a potential economic threat as a reason to establish an essential service. Without going into too much discussion, perhaps we could invite the minister to explain the rationale for the decision to remove those two provisions and explain his reasoning for doing so.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member is right: the government made some changes with regard to the bill, particularly with matters relating to public interest. My argument could be that it is in the public interest. In that regard the government simply took the advice of the panel, which was unanimous, and decided essential
[ Page 4631 ]
services should be limited to matters that threaten the health, safety and welfare of citizens. The references to education services and economic threats to the province in the Industrial Relations Act have been deleted. That was a policy decision made by government, feeling that the appropriate words -- "health, safety or welfare" -- are broad enough to capture the intent of the section.
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess it's getting a little tiring to hear the same argument all the time.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I see the peanut gallery off to my left is in full force today.
The argument that the minister brings forward with regard to section 72 is one that he has brought forward numerous times, certainly in this House in debate and in the media. Because a representative from big business, a representative from big labour and a mediator came to some conclusions, in this case a unanimous conclusion, that's the only reason he needed to change the legislation. I hate to remind the minister for about the fiftieth time that in fact his obligations go beyond that of big business and big labour, but rest with the community as a whole. I think the determination of levels of essential services is particularly the area in which the minister's concern for the public interest should come to the fore.
There are numerous cases where we have had problems in the province. We have had strikes and work disruptions where even the minimal levels of essential service that were allowed under the previous legislation were not sufficient -- as the public perceived, anyway -- to deal with people at a comfortable level.
I notice the minister is calling upon his back-bench friends to get involved in the debate, so perhaps I should take my seat and listen to the comments from the member for Mission-Kent.
Hon. M. Sihota: I wasn't doing that.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the hand signals have changed, much like they do in a baseball game, but that was certainly the same hand signal we have seen throughout this debate that calls on the member for Mission-Kent to engage in the debate so the minister can leave the room.
On section 72, perhaps I can ask some practical questions of the minister which are based upon comments that I have heard by the public and that I am sure the minister has heard in the last year or so that he has been in office. As far as health care goes, which is one of the instances in here, the level of essential service in the minds of the public was not sufficient, and I know that is one instance.
Perhaps the minister can explain how it is that when the general public seems to feel that there should be a greater level of essential services, the minister is reducing the scope of essential services, contrary to public opinion.
Hon. M. Sihota: It's interesting that the hon. member would say that the scope has been reduced. Quite frankly, if you read the section, you could argue that the scope has been broadened.
G. Farrell-Collins: I assume that the minister will be making that argument. I will argue that it has been lessened, and the minister can argue that it has been broadened, and we'll let the public decide. If he chooses not to engage in that discussion, then I guess my job will be that much easier.
Section 72, as we know, removed the wording whereby education was included as an essential service. I know that the minister has stated in the House a number of times that the provision was never used. Perhaps the minister can explain why he feels it needs to be removed. Is it merely because it has not been used over the last several years, and that he foresees no need to utilize it in the future? Or is there some other reason that the section has been removed?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not going to argue whether the section has been broadened or limited. What I am going to argue is this: the Labour Relations Board will have the ability to make determinations as to how they interpret the provisions of this section. They will, on their own, decide which issues fall within the ambit of health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia, and we will leave it up to them to make that determination. Far be it from me in this House to give them some direction. For all the reasons that I am hesitant to give them that direction, the hon. member should be prepared to see how the board handles the issue.
I don't think the public interest is served by him making arguments that it has been narrowed until such time as the matter has been dealt with by the board. If he wants to come back next year in estimates and argue that this has been narrowed, he might be in a better position to make the argument.
I don't know how the board is going to look at the issue, and we will be watching with great interest. Let's not forget that access to the test has been made easier. Either party can ask the Labour Relations Board for a determination. Educational authorities can make the case that their situation is captured by 72, and the minister can direct, on his own initiative, consideration of section 72. So, hon. member, your thesis may or may not be true, but I think that you should respect the right of the Labour Relations Board to make its own determination as to how it reads that section and how it treats cases that come before it.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister says far be it from him to provide any direction to the Labour Relations Board as to how this section should be interpreted. I would say, by the very amendments the minister has made, that he has given direction to the Labour Relations Board. He has stated quite clearly that no longer, in his mind and in the mind of his government, is education considered an essential service in this province, and that under this government, under this minister, there should not be any provisions
[ Page 4632 ]
for a minimal level of service as it relates to essential services.
[2:45]
We have had this debate with regard to schools, and it has raged on for some time. We had in section 68 -- well, back even further in section 6 as far as unfair labour practices are concerned.... It extended right up into section 68, where we talked about levels of essential services in order to ensure that students could get home safely in the event of sudden job action. The minister said that we could discuss that in section 72. Now we're in section 72, and the minister says: "We'll let the Labour Relations Board take responsibility for that."
My questions are: when is the Minister of Labour going to take responsibility for any of this stuff? When is the Minister of Labour going to stand up and speak in the public interest? When is the Minister of Labour finally, after going through 72 sections, going to stand up and answer to the public and to the parents in this province about levels of essential services in schools? How much longer do we have to wait? Do we have to go all the way to section 176? Or are we going to wait until estimates, as the minister says now, or until estimates a year from now, or two or three years from now? What is the minister going to do? In this legislation, how is the minister taking the concerns of the principals and vice-principals, school trustees, superintendents and parents of this province with regard to the children and their safety and security?
The minister may say that that's included in here -- for safety and health and welfare. Perhaps, then, the minister can stand up and for once give some clear direction to the Labour Relations Board by stating that in his mind the intent behind his government -- including health, safety and welfare in this bill -- is to include under the section on safety that it is the duty and the obligation of those professionals to deal with the students to ensure that they get home safely or that they are supervised in the classrooms. Why can't the minister make that minute, clear statement to the general public to give some direction to the Labour Relations Board as to what this actually means?
I know the minister is very leery about giving direction to the Labour Relations Board, but in this instance, after going through this type of a debate in at least three other sections, why can't the minister give some clear direction as to what he means when he's dealing with safety? Does that include the supervision of students in the event of sudden job action, and does it include getting those children home in the event of sudden job action? Is that what he is intending to be included when he uses the word "safety"?
D. Streifel: Within the framework of essential services, and indeed within the framework of labour legislation in the province of British Columbia, I think the direction since 1984 has been for continuous, ongoing and deeper involvement of the government, per se -- or the minister or the philosophy of a particular government -- with injections into the direction and the decisions made by a labour board. It becomes increasingly difficult to have consistent and rational labour legislation and the application of labour legislation when it's done on the whim of a particular minister or, indeed, on the whim of a particular Premier of a province. That's what we saw with the continued erosion since 1984 of the labour relations atmosphere in British Columbia, and it culminated in Bill 19. We heard earlier today from the Labour critic in response to the coal mining situation in the Kootenays, where it would appear that the opposition would feel much freer if those workers indeed lost their jobs and their seniority because of the application of unfair labour legislation under Bill 19.
In Bill 84, particularly in section 72, essential services, we have a situation whereby the decisions are made by the labour board -- as they should be. If there are particular times when the board is having difficulties, or an area where the minister sees that there may be a problem with essential services, the minister has the ability under this section to initiate applications of essential services. But it must be limited. We have within this section on essential services a provision whereby if the parties have difficulties, if collective bargaining breaks down and a labour dispute or strike happens, the parties can apply for a mediator to help determine the levels and application of essential services -- and that's as it should be. It should be kept within the realm of the quasi-legal body to determine how labour law is applied in British Columbia. To constantly interject the philosophy of one or two individuals is wrong, just as it would be wrong for the Attorney General to constantly interject his own particular bias into criminal or civil law in British Columbia.
So as we see within labour legislation, it's very important that the determination of such things as essential services and how labour legislation is applied should grow within the legislation and should be adjudicated by the labour body itself, the Labour Relations Board. Without that, we end up with chaos. We end up like we did under Bill 19 where nobody wanted to work within a set of labour laws that was not workable, that clearly was not fair, as we saw earlier today in the application of one section of that labour law in the coal-mines. It was a particular political philosophy that brought out that one section in that old labour legislation.
In section 72 of Bill 84 we have seen again where the decision-making process is left up to the Labour Relations Board when it's reformed after this legislation.
G. Farrell-Collins: I understand my hand signals weren't confused after all. In fact, the minister has left, and a backbencher is engaged in the debate. That's fine, hon. Chair, because quite often the level of debate is better when the minister is not here.
The member rose and perhaps put some words in my mouth that weren't there earlier today in response to the statement brought forward by the minister. This member was merely enlightening the minister on the fact that Bill 84 had not become law -- certainly had not become law as the minister was speaking and is not likely to become law for a little while yet -- and that the minister should be cautioned against pre-empting or
[ Page 4633 ]
planning ahead for the implementation of Bill 84 and entering into processes that are not yet allowed by law. That was the only caution that was afforded to the minister. Certainly to state that somehow the opposition was in favour of workers being treated unfairly is not the case.
The member talked a bit about his leeriness in allowing the minister to become involved in disputes, and that the opposition had been pushing numerous times for the minister to become involved in this bill and give all sorts of directions to the Labour Relations Board. My understanding of the way the process works is that the minister gives the direction to the Labour Relations Board through the legislation that he puts in place, and through comments that he makes in this House. That is the direction he intends to pass on to the Labour Relations Board. The member who just spoke stated that in his opinion and in the opinion of his government, it's not in the best interests of the public to have the minister involved in all sorts of aspects of the labour relations code in the province, and that premiers or Labour ministers should not have their opinions or their personal involvement in the code. He used the parallel of the Attorney General. That's probably not a very good parallel, because the Attorney General is accorded a good deal of autonomy -- and, in fact, should be -- in order to ensure confidence in the judicial process in the province.
The minister should read his own bill -- especially the sections that are upcoming, if he hasn't had a chance to read that far in the legislation that we've been debating for the past seven or eight weeks. If the minister did read the bill, he would find numerous instances in Bill 84 where the powers of the minister have been made that much greater, and where the minister can become involved that much easier or to a greater extent in the running of labour relations in this province. Perhaps the member is a little uninformed about his own legislation which his government is bringing forward.
I would also ask the member, before he engages too much in a debate on essential services, to look at the provisions that were recently brought in in Ontario and the provisions that have been in place in Quebec for some time, as they relate to essential services and the levels of essential services. If he does so, I think he will find that those two governments have been much clearer to the various semi-judicial bodies that administer labour relations in those two provinces.
Given the vagueness of what he's trying to bring in with this code, we would like to hear from the minister some sense of what's included in that. Let's get a little more specific than what's already there, because there are some very specific concerns out there in the public. We certainly have heard them, and I'm sure the minister must have heard them. He has been doing talk shows and media interviews; I'm sure he has had calls from people. I'm sure he gets messages passed to him in his office -- at least, I hope so. The minister has had similar amounts of mail that we have certainly had from the general public -- not people who own a business or who are members of trade unions, but just the general public.
I think that section 72 is, of all the sections in the bill, the one that most importantly deals with the interests of the public. I would ask the minister to stand up and clarify for this House what exactly he intends to include in essential services. What does the government intend to include when they talk about essential services?
Hon. M. Sihota: It is the feeling of the government that essential services should be provided as services which are truly essential, and that those services should be available on an ongoing basis. Therefore we've chosen to develop the language of health, safety and welfare. A long-term dispute involving education may have an impact on the welfare of the province, but that is something the board would have to determine. The way the board would determine that is if the parties make an application, and they can make that application.
I'm not going to prejudge a situation to determine whether or not education is covered. It would be wrong for me to do that. I will simply say this: that determination will be made by the board. Therefore, given the definition here, we see no need to include education, which the hon. member should know was never a matter that triggered an essential services designation in the past.
I think that it's wrong for the hon. member to engage in unnecessary fearmongering, which is what we're seeing from the opposition as it desperately tries to undermine a very good section in the code. I will not fetter the discretion of the board, and I would not expect the board to rely on the statements I've made in the House with regard to scope as an interpretive tool in any way. It will make its own determinations, hon. member, as it properly should; and government, as it properly should, will watch how developments occur.
I want the hon. member to know that in response to the questions where he asks me to interpret the section, I will not be interpreting the section. I will leave that job to the body with the authority to do so -- the Labour Relations Board. I will only deal with questions that fall outside the ambit of that point.
D. Streifel: I feel I must respond to a couple of comments made by the opposition Labour critic. Again, he seems to be unaware of not only labour legislation and jurisprudence, but also how the House works.
Interjection.
D. Streifel: He made comments and asked me questions. If I were to respond directly in answer to one of the opposition critic's questions, it would be a violation of the standing orders.
[3:00]
I'd like to comment from my experience within the trade union movement and jurisprudence on how labour legislation is interpreted within Canada.
Interjection.
[ Page 4634 ]
D. Streifel: If the hon. Labour critic would sit in silence and listen to my words of wisdom, he may in fact have something intelligent to say later on.
Within the labour movement and labour law in Canada, precedent for a labour board to make a decision isn't only grown and cultured within the boundaries of their own province. In fact, they often reach far beyond their province. In order to help make a decision on a clause or section of a labour code that may have to do with strikes, essential services or collective bargaining, in some instances a labour board may go far beyond the jurisdiction of the province, even internationally when necessary. In some arbitrations I have conducted on my own, I have used decisions that came out of the Quebec labour relations atmosphere. I found them to be very good, sensible and supportive of workers' rights. I stand to share that with the hon. Labour critic so he may leave this House at one point a little more educated on labour relations matters.
G. Farrell-Collins: Last week we had the member singing "Solidarity Forever" in the House. I thought he was going to get into his little speech: "Strikes I've Known and Loved Since 1917."
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: He has started on it. Maybe he should get up and give us a little bit of a litany of them, like he has done in the past.
It's interesting that the member brought up the process by which a Labour Relations Board makes its decisions, because as any judicial or semi-judicial body, of course they have the ability to go outside their own jurisdiction and extend their probing on relevant matters, not just outside the province or the country but right around the world. They have the ability to look at other scenarios and use good decisions made elsewhere to make determinations here. Any judicial or semi-judicial body has that ability. I don't think he's enlightening anybody by providing us with that information.
Seeing as the member brought up the process of essential services and made mention of the province of Quebec, I wonder if the member, being so pleased with the Quebec legislation, would also like to have amendments introduced that would include the level of essential services, as they appear in Quebec, which deals with provisions for essential services in municipal, corporate and intermunicipal agencies.
Essential services -- here we go: "Telephone service; fixed-schedule, land-transport services, such as railways or a subway; or a transport service carried out by bus or by boat." Would the member like to see that type of legislation in this House? Maybe he would. He's speaking in favour of the process brought in in Quebec and how it relates to section 72. If the member is going to quote outside legislation and speak highly of it, it's important that he also include portions of that legislation that may not support his argument.
We deal with other ones. For example, the undertaking engaged in the production, transmission, distribution or sale of gas, water or electricity. I had a call about an hour ago from a gentleman whose client has a gas company in British Columbia. He's concerned about a strike that may or may not occur in the near future. His client would have to shut that facility down. They wouldn't be able to continue to operate it, because the level of management would be minimal. It's not an essential service. It's not in another section of 72 dealing with economic threats, which we'll probably be dealing with momentarily. Is the supply of gas an economic threat to the province? I suppose it could be. If you have plants, factories, heating facilities and all sorts of industries that rely on natural gas, then the lack of supply of natural gas would certainly be considered an economic threat. They made provisions for that in Quebec very clearly -- not some vague wording of "health, safety or welfare" but very specific wording. It states that anyone engaged in the production, transmission, distribution or sale of gas, water or electricity may have a level of essential services designated. They have given some very clear directions to their parallel of our Labour Relations Board. That's the type of legislation we need -- something a little more specific than the minister brought forward.
There are a couple of other things in Quebec. Home garbage removal is considered an essential service. I wonder if the member for Mission-Kent would be able to stand up and speak in favour of that. Ambulance service, the Canadian Red Cross -- an agency that.... It goes on to mention the schools and a few other ones with regard to the Public Service Act. Essentially, if you are involved with the public service in Quebec, you stand the chance of being designated an essential service in order to establish some level of essential services in the event of work stoppages. When the member speaks of essential services in Quebec, perhaps he should read their labour code and speak to what's in there and how it relates to Bill 84.
As we debate this section over the next several hours or so -- certainly into this evening -- we'll deal with various provisions of essential services. The two areas of concern are going to be education and economic threat, because those are certainly the ones that the minister made changes to in this bill. Does the minister not think that it would have been in the public's best interest to have brought in amendments that state quite clearly what is and isn't included in the essential services designation, much as they've done in Quebec and other jurisdictions?
Hon. M. Sihota: No, that hasn't been the practice in B.C.
G. Farrell-Collins: The other aspect that I wish to discuss is a provision that the minister removed from the bill -- that is, the reference to an economic threat. There was the example I gave just a moment ago with regard to the gas corporation and the supply of gas. That was a concern of one person who had called.
Is it not, then, in the interests of other businesses and organizations in this province to have some provision for an economic threat? Certainly when there is an economic threat to the province, if a strike were to extend beyond the confines of a certain area -- not because of secondary picketing but just because of a
[ Page 4635 ]
work stoppage in one sector -- and cause disruption throughout the economy, would it not be prudent for the government to have a provision that would set that up as an essential service, so that there would not be widespread disruption throughout the economy because of a dispute in one area?
With that, hon. Chair, I would move the two amendments -- I can move them at the same time if you so wish -- that stand in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 72(1) If a dispute arises after collective bargaining has commenced, either of the parties to the dispute may apply to the chair to investigate or the chair on his or her own motion may investigate whether or not the dispute poses a threat to the economy of the Province or to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia and report the results of the investigation to the minister.]
[SECTION 72(2) If the minister
(a) after receiving a report of the chair respecting a dispute, or
(b) on the minister's own initiative
considers that a dispute poses a threat to the economy of the Province or the health, safety and welfare of the residents of British Columbia, the minister may direct the board to designate as services those facilities, productions and services that the board considers necessary or essential to prevent immediate and serious danger to the economy of the Province or to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia.]
On the amendments.
G. Farrell-Collins: The changes to section 72 that we are proposing with the amendments on the order paper deal with that very issue of an economic threat. Certainly the amendment to subsection (2) would allow the chair of the board and, in this case, the minister himself or herself -- in the event that this minister doesn't continue in his portfolio throughout the mandate or in future governments -- to establish levels of essential service, not only for health, safety and welfare but also as they apply to an economic threat.
It's really interesting to note that under section 72(2)(b) of Bill 84, the minister himself or herself -- this particular minister -- can make those changes with regard to essential services and can suggest that a level of essential service be established. It's interesting that the minister would seek to have his involvement in this capacity under Bill 84. It's also interesting that the member for Mission-Kent didn't pick up on that when he spoke about not having the minister involved. In fact, his own government's bill puts the onus squarely on the shoulders of the minister, in some cases, to deal with whether or not there is a need for essential services.
I would say to the minister that by putting in a provision for an economic threat to the province, in fact we're broadening the scope of the level of essential services and providing for the best possible interpretation of this section as it relates to the public interest.
J. Tyabji: We would like to hear what the minister has to say with regard to the addition to section 72 by way of the amendment, particularly because the people of the province are obviously very interested in the essential services section. We know that the minister has repeatedly stated in the House that he has a commitment to good labour relations. The opposition feels very strongly that one of the ways by which you maintain good labour relations is to ensure that the definition of essential services is tightened up enough so that there isn't a general anxiety among the public -- whether that be labour unrest in the public sector or private sector -- and people are properly provided for.
We have canvassed the same concept in different sections of the bill. The minister must recognize that it is very important for this bill to have the essential services section. The minister himself must have some commitment to essential services. The mechanism for designating that something be deemed an essential service, which the minister keeps referring to, is activated by the minister. So if the mechanism to designate essential services is activated by the minister, the minister's own discretion as to what constitutes an immediate and serious threat or danger obviously comes into play. We have here "health, safety or welfare" being listed, and we know that ultimately it's going to be the nature of the chair to make a recommendation. But the fact that we've put "threat to the economy".... For example, "welfare" might in a very general sense encompass a threat to the economy of the province. The minister may wish to argue that the economy of the province is provided for by saying: "...welfare of the residents of British Columbia...." If that is the case, please share that with the House. If the minister honestly believes that essential services with regard to the functioning of the economy or a threat to the economy of the province are provided for by the word "welfare" in this section of the bill, I would urge him to share that with the House, because that is a very important piece of this legislation for us to have an understanding of.
If he does not believe that "welfare of the residents" adequately addresses the issue of threat to the economy, could he also share that with the House? Because if the minister doesn't believe that a threat to the economy can be deemed an essential service, I believe that it is his obligation as the Minister of Labour to share that with the province. I don't believe that this minister consistently referring to either the consensus report or the Labour Relations Board or the chair as an adequate means for determining the definitions in the legislation is a valid argument or a valid way of dealing with it. So the two questions are: first of all, does the minister believe that "welfare of the residents" adequately addresses threat to the economy? And if he does, could he share that with us? If he does not, could he then explain to us why he does not believe that a threat to the economy constitutes an essential service?
Hon. M. Sihota: The board determines whether or not the word "welfare" goes that far. Secondly, I should advise the hon. member that the words "threat to the economy" were never relied upon in the previous legislation, and proved to be superfluous.
[3:15]
[ Page 4636 ]
J. Tyabji: This minister is well aware that there are often provisions in bills that don't get activated. It doesn't mean that they're superfluous; it just means that the situation hasn't arisen yet, but may arise in the future.
I would like to share with the minister his own bill, 72(2)(b). This is the part where we believe that the minister should be on record with regard to his interpretation.
"If the minister
(b) on the minister's own initiative
considers that a dispute poses a threat to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia, the minister may direct the board to designate as essential services those facilities, productions and services that the board considers necessary or essential...."
So we know it's the minister, "on the minister's own initiative," making a direction to the board to designate. So it is not enough for the minister to stand up and say that it is up to the board or the chair. This is why the opposition will ask again whether the minister would share with the House: first of all, if this minister were faced with a labour unrest situation where this minister felt that a threat to the economy was on the horizon, would this minister consider that enough of an essential service to be canvassed under the welfare part of this section? If not, would he then go to the board with a recommendation to designate that threat to the economy as an essential service? And how would he do that if it's not canvassed under welfare?
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, if you just pause and read the section, you'll see that I may have the power, through 72(2)(b), to determine that something may pose "a threat to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia," but it's up to the board to determine whether or not any essential services should be designated.
J. Tyabji: I will repeat my question, in case the minister missed the point. He is agreeing with me that if this minister considers that there is a threat to health, safety or welfare, he may direct the board. So my question to the minister is: if he saw a threat to the economy, would he direct the board? And if he did, where is it canvassed under health, safety or welfare? Does this minister believe that the welfare provisions of section 72(2)(b) address a threat to the economy? If he does not, does he believe that the threat to the economy does not need to be addressed? It's a simple question. It is the minister who has admitted that it's his responsibility.
Hon. M. Sihota: It's up to the minister to determine whether or not a dispute poses a threat, but it's up to the board to determine whether or not there's anything there that should be designated as essential -- if you see the distinction. It's an important one. If your question is about what situations I would deem to be appropriate to determine that they pose a threat, as opposed to which situation I would deem to designate, then if it's the first -- the threat -- I'd make those determinations based on the facts that were before me at the time they were before me.
J. Tyabji: I almost sense there might be a little bit of movement on the part of the minister to admit that he does have culpability and that his judgment does come into play in terms of determining what a threat is. That's how the bill reads.
As per the comments of the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove to the minister with regard, for example, to some kind of labour unrest that prevented something as essential to the functioning of the economy as gas -- in a scenario like that -- would this minister consider that threat to the economy to be provided for in terms of health, safety or welfare? Would he believe that that type of dispute poses a threat, as the bill is written here, because that is a direct threat to the economy?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'll deal with the fact patterns as they present themselves to me. I'm not going to deal with hypotheticals. You know that, hon. member. I've said that to you repeatedly in this House. Whether it does or doesn't, whether it might or might not will be a determination we make at the time the issue is before us.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps I can ask the question in simpler terms. The minister stated that he felt an economic threat to the province was a superfluous provision in the bill, and therefore he has taken it out. Does he think that that's the case because, in fact, an economic threat to the province is included under what he considers to be the word "welfare"? When he sees "welfare," does he assume that it includes an economic threat to the province? Is that, in fact, economic welfare? What does he mean when he puts the word welfare in there?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'll mean what I mean when I interpret the section, when I need to interpret the section, when an issue is before me, hon. member. I'm not going to do it in advance. You know that; you know I can't, and you know I won't.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps what we should be asking ourselves, and probably what the public is asking themselves right now, is: why are the rules of this House such that they allow for committee debate on a bill when the minister has absolutely no intention of addressing the concerns or the line-by-line, clause-by-clause wording that's in the bill? Why are we even bothering to do this? What's the point? It's quite clear that the minister has chosen three very specific words -- "health, safety and welfare" -- and in his mind they include all the necessary cases where the minister or the board may have to establish through the process some level of essential services. What we are asking the minister is: does welfare include an economic threat to the province -- period?
Hon. M. Sihota: We will make that determination when the fact pattern presents itself in front of us --
[ Page 4637 ]
wherein we may have to make that determination, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's extremely frustrating that the minister would even bother to bring this piece of legislation before the House if he's unwilling to comment on its content. We must look very carefully at this bill. We must look very carefully at this section and at the wording that exists in this section in order to determine whether this section is adequate to account for all of those provisions which may occur in the day-to-day operations of the economy of this province, and to ensure a level of essential service. All we are asking the minister is that he clearly state to this House what is included in those three words. He brings forth these words, puts them down in a bill and says: "Trust me. I'll interpret them when the time comes." The duty of this House is to determine whether those words are sufficient. Do those words, in fact, account for all possible cases that we can possibly conceive of in this House where the minister or the board may have to make a designation of level of essential services? That's the question. That's why we're going through clause by clause, line by line. And the minister knows that full well. He's been in this House long enough to know that that's the process. The minister should be able to stand up and tell us, yes or no, that in his mind an economic threat to the province is included under health or under welfare or under safety. He should be able to say: "Well, yes, if there were a perceived economic threat to this province from some source due to a labour dispute, I would include that under the provisions that allow for welfare if that eventuality arose" -- not to state in this House what his decision would be or what level of essential services he would prescribe for each individual sector, but merely to state that in making that determination, that decision, he would include an economic threat to the province under the word "welfare."
I don't think that's too much to ask, hon. Chair. In fact, I think that's exactly what we're here to ask. I think it's exactly what the minister is here to answer, and I think it's time he did answer that type of question.
G. Wilson: Listening to this debate and to the intransigence of the minister reminds me of another debate the minister and I were having some months ago where it was: "Trust me on the language. It doesn't mean what it says, but it might say what we mean sometime down the line."
Mr. Chairman, with respect to this amendment, in what is generally accepted and what I think the minister would agree has been past practice, welfare essentially talks about the general well-being of the residents of British Columbia and does not necessarily constitute economic threat, because that general well-being may be protected in the larger measure by other forms of legislation that exist in the province.
So the line of questioning that the opposition is putting forward and the reason that this amendment is here are entirely valid, I think, because the practitioners in the field tell us that this is, in fact, an inadequate section with respect to the economic well-being of the people of British Columbia and that this section needs to be amended. It needs to have some reference in it to economic well-being. Otherwise, the language of "health, safety or welfare" will be interpreted as it has been in the past, where welfare talks about the general well-being of a resident and does not have any direct significance to the economic functioning survival of those people who are investing in business, especially small and mid-sized business in British Columbia.
So I think it's important that we hear more from the minister than: "I'll mean what I mean when I say what I say, because at some later point I'm going to make an interpretation, or the board will do so on behalf of some presentation I make down the road." I think it's important for the minister to at least acknowledge that "welfare" in this context means more than general well-being and does include the functioning or maintenance of the economy of the province. If it does not, then I would expect that the minister would agree that the amendment before us now is a fairly simple one and does not in any way deter or change the intent or meaning of the bill. It simply broadens the definition to provide us the protection which the practitioners in the field tell us is required if this section is to be as meaningful as I think the minister intends it to be. I wonder if the minister could acknowledge those questions on the word "welfare" so that we at least have a definition of that term.
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know which practitioners are advising the opposition, but I do know this: either party, including those practitioners, can go to the LRB if they sense that a case poses a threat to the safety, health or welfare of the province and make the argument that their fact pattern applies. They can also put sufficient pressure on the minister to indicate that, on his initiative, he considers the dispute poses a threat to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia. That is a significant improvement over the previous legislation in terms of process, access and opportunity. It would seem to me that the opposition and their advisers ought to be congratulating the government for the changes they have brought forward with regard to this section, because it gives the directly accountable public official an opportunity to make a determination, which in the past was denied to that individual under section 137.8(1) of the Labour Relations Code. In addition, it should give the hon. member some comfort to know that he now has the ability, in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition, to put direct pressure on a minister to make a determination under section 72(2); whereas, previously the section provided a minister with a shield with regard to a report from the commissioner. It has lifted the veil and placed the public interest responsibility and determination squarely where it should be with regard to the minister.
How this minister or others may interpret that section remains to be seen, but the hon. member knows, as well as I, that one is not immune from pressure with regard to any section in a code.
[ Page 4638 ]
G. Wilson: I acknowledge that the Leader of the Opposition delights in putting pressure on the Labour minister from time to time.
Maybe I can put this question in more practical terms. With respect to the functioning of, say, the B.C. Ferry Corporation in a wildcat situation, would we recognize that it created a great deal of economic hardship? In the event of a legally constituted strike in a community such as the Sunshine Coast, where I am from, there is no other way on or off for people transporting goods to retailers. A prolonged strike would essentially roll up the road. Would that be considered a threat to the welfare of the residents of British Columbia if one community was essentially unable to get goods through to the points of retailing? Maybe the minister could answer that.
[3:30]
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member knows full well that we do not regulate illegal strikes. The sections that we have already passed deal with the matter of illegal strikes.
With regard to legal strikes, in this kind of a situation the government will make its determination when it's faced with that kind of situation. I am not going to prejudge how I would handle a matter, such as a ferry situation, under 72(2), except to say to the hon. member that, as the Minister of Labour, I have a wide variety of options available to bring an end to a dispute, and this is one of the options available to a minister to consider.
Experience has taught me that different situations require different levels of involvement, and few situations require a high degree of intervention. It's best to make a determination on each situation as and when it arises by determining which remedy available is the best one to deploy. That's certainly what experience has taught me; that's the approach we'll take. We'll take a look at each situation as it presents itself to find the solution.
Sometimes solutions are easy to find, and then the situation can be resolved quickly. I'll just give you two examples. The Queen's Printer is an issue where I think there was a strike for a matter of days, and we were able to establish a process to put an end to the labour dispute and off we went. The ferry situation was another situation where we were able to implement a....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: It was a process which, quite frankly -- for those of you who don't seem to understand -- was triggered through the involvement of our office. Similarly, with regard to ferries, we took another action which made it possible for us to be in front of the Industrial Relations Council at 11 o'clock and have those ferries back at 3 o'clock. But we did not have to reach to a provision such as this one.
In other situations.... As we discussed in the House today, none of the parties in the Fording situation requested any intervention; both parties shunned any intervention from government. And we allowed the dispute to go on for quite some time. I guess what I'm saying is that different fact patterns require different determinations. I'm not going to prejudge an issue until I'm faced squarely with it, hon. member.
G. Wilson: Perhaps the Minister of Labour isn't aware that on August 29 there were discussions about the Fording situation, and the government, in fact, was asked to assist in trying to resolve that situation. Perhaps the Minister of Labour wasn't apprised of it, seeing that communication doesn't always happen on that side.
With respect to the amendment -- and I come back to that -- the reason we are putting in this amendment is.... I think the minister has just now outlined the broad parameters where the language -- "health, safety or welfare" -- may be used in terms of interpretation on the question of economic threat. We understand the question of health, and we will have some comment with respect to that. We understand safety, if one is talking about the safety to the individual purpose or welfare, which generally, we are told by the practitioners in the field, means "well-being" of those people in British Columbia who are affected by a work stoppage. An economic threat to the province is something that is much broader, much wider, and may in fact not be interpreted under health, safety or welfare.
Therefore, if the minister wishes to have this bill tight, and get more than just congratulations, which I'm sure he wants, but in fact get applause from the people in the labour relations field, he will have recognized that the amendment now put forward by the opposition is sensible, and that it cleans up the bill to the extent that it gives a broader horizon that we can shoot for when the options that the minister so clearly outlines are undertaken with respect to the provisions in this section.
I would suggest that if the minister were to look at the language that is here, he would agree that it is very general in its terminology, especially in the definition of the word "welfare." The introduction of our amendment with respect to the economic threat only helps to strengthen the bill and to further improve it. I'm sure the minister would recognize that it is a worthwhile amendment to support.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, let's face facts here. I could make exactly the inverse argument. I could stand here and argue that the use of the words that you've placed in the amendment on the matter of the threat to the economy of the province could be used to limit the interpretation of sections 72(1) and 72(2). That argument runs both ways. We're quite happy with the wording that's here, but for you to stand up in this House and argue that your wording somehow expands the scope of the section.... I could quite easily argue that it does exactly the opposite. So let's stay with the wording we've got here. It's fairly good wording, and it gives us comfort.
J. Tyabji: The opposition Labour critic, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, asked the minister very specifically, first of all, why they removed the economic threat provision, and the minister said it was superflu-
[ Page 4639 ]
ous. So I guess the question I have is: does the minister not agree that the intent of this section has changed with the removal of that provision, by changing the focus of what are listed as threats?
Hon. M. Sihota: The intent of the section is to deal with essential services in a process for designation and involvement with regard to essential services.
J. Tyabji: That wasn't quite my question to the minister. We have canvassed this before in previous amendments that we've brought forward. As a lawyer, the minister understands that the inclusion or exclusion of words will have a direct impact on the interpretation of the section. Even though this provision was not referred to specifically in his words, does he not understand that it had some bearing on the section in the previous act?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not too sure whether it coloured the section or not. That would be a determination of the Labour Relations Board, hon. member.
J. Tyabji: Since the minister won't say one way or the other whether it coloured the section, we would suggest that it definitely did. If he doesn't feel that it coloured the section, then why would he remove it? If he doesn't feel that it had any impact, does the minister, by removing this section, have a different focus or direction on the essential services section than was in the previous act?
Hon. M. Sihota: I've already answered the question as to why it was removed.
J. Tyabji: Perhaps a different line of questioning for the minister, because he doesn't seem to be answering that.
We have been trying to get some answer from the minister as to what role he thinks an economic threat plays in terms of essential services. Does the minister see that there could be times when the welfare of the residents of British Columbia would be affected by economic threats?
Hon. M. Sihota: That question has been asked many times, and I've already answered it.
J. Tyabji: We differ very strongly. I don't think anyone feels that the minister has adequately answered it. If the minister wishes to review Hansard....
D. Streifel: I do.
J. Tyabji: We've got our friend who sings "Solidarity Forever." I think he's wishing that we'd end this.
The amendment is to introduce a provision for an economic threat into this section of the bill. The minister has not explained to the House why he is reluctant to do that or his reasons for removing it from the previous act. Would the minister please tell us how he sees his role under section 72(2)(b) when determining what is directed to the board for designation, in terms of the economy of the province? Does he see any role at all for the economy?
If the minister is trying to say that the answers he has provided so far should be adequate, the only thing the opposition has heard so far is that the minister is completely unwilling to take any economic considerations into account when directing the board to give essential services designation. If that's the answer the minister wants to get out, that's what we've heard. We've heard him say that he has deliberately removed it from the bill, even though he says he doesn't think it coloured the bill, and that he will not put it in by way of an amendment, because he wants to go in a different direction. Reading between the lines.... We've heard that the minister doesn't think the economy has any role to play in terms of essential services. Is that the message the minister wants out? If not, could he please enlighten the House as to where he would be directing the board to designate, where it has any impact at all?
I see that the minister of entertainment has just entered the room. Hopefully he will get into the debate.
The Chair: Order, hon. member! That's not required.
Hon. M. Sihota: To be honest about it, the Liberal opposition has heard me say nothing, and I don't intend to say anything about this section. If an application were to be made, I would leave it up to the Labour Relations Board to make their determination. With regard to myself, as I said earlier on, in my capacity as Minister of Labour, I'll deal with situations as they present themselves.
J. Tyabji: We've had the minister just admit that he has said absolutely nothing. That is a very honest answer. We can read between the lines, though, and that means he does not believe that the economy has any role to play in terms of a designation of essential services.
What we have not heard from the minister -- and we have asked him directly.... Where it says in the section that if the minister, on the minister's own initiative, directing the board.... I hope the hon. minister is listening, because the people of the province want an answer. To what extent does the minister feel that the economy of the province has a role to play in his directing of the board to designate essential services?
G. Wilson: Not wanting to unnecessarily prolong debate on this amendment, I think it's important to acknowledge that while the members of this House may feel there is some tedium in this debate, there are many people in the province, to the surprise of all of us, who are actually watching and following this or, if not, are reading it in Hansard. It is going to become fairly obvious that the response from the minister, when he said, "You've heard me say absolutely nothing," was perhaps the most honest response we've had to date, because even when we have had long and protracted responses from the minister, we often hear very little or nothing.
[ Page 4640 ]
This question is an important one, because the fact that words in previous legislation have been deleted has meaning. The minister has to know that if the words are taken out, there is a reason those words are removed. If, in fact, the minister is reluctant or not prepared to make comment with respect to the proposition of the word "welfare" and whether or not that word can or will be interpreted to include the broader definition of an economic threat, it seems to me that what the minister is acknowledging here by his silence.... Let me put it this way, and let the record say: the silence of this minister will be, and probably should be, interpreted as meaning that the question of an economic threat to British Columbia is no longer a viable and valid reason why any services or provision of industry should be designated as essential services in a work stoppage. If that's the intention of the minister, he had better say so. I think that the people of British Columbia are going to judge this minister harshly on the fact that he seems ill-prepared or unwilling to come forward to provide a simple answer to the question of a definition of the word "welfare" and whether or not the amendment that we have put forward strengthens the bill. To suggest that it broadens the parameters is a positive not a negative in our judgment, and I think that the minister owes it to the people of British Columbia, especially those who will be affected by this legislation, to make his views known prior to this legislation becoming law.
Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to stand in my place today and introduce to the House a delegation of securities regulators visiting us from the Shenzhen district of China and, along with them, executive members of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. We're delighted to welcome them to the House today, and we look forward to a continuing fruitful relationship over the coming years. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'd like to know what they think about our stock exchange after they leave.
It would be wrong for the Leader of the Opposition to say that my statements said what he says they said, because I'm not persuaded that they said what he says they said. In addition to that, I want him to understand what I said when I was remarking on what he had said, which is to say that the amendment he's brought forward could have the effect of limiting the section, contrary to what he has argued. I could easily make that argument, hon. member. So you're running the risk with your amendment of limiting the interpretation of the section, and it's wrong for you to characterize my statements in the way that you've tried to.
[3:45]
L. Reid: My question to the minister is in reference to the amendment which talks about essential service and about a threat to the health, safety and well-being of the residents of British Columbia. There was an issue last spring which I believe was a significant threat to patient safety and health in this province. We were not privy to any kind of reasonable resolution at that time, and in fact, a number of the newspaper articles from April and May that refer to that time talk about a 25-day disruption of service and a government that said it was putting forward levels of essential services. The entire documentation I have with me today suggests that those service levels were never met.
What assurances can you give to the taxpaying public -- the people who fund this health care system -- that the proposal you have forwarded in the guise of Bill 84 is somehow going to provide them with reasonable health care? I speak directly to the amendment: "...a threat to the economy of the province or to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia." I'd be interested in your assurances today.
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, let me assure you, hon. member, that under section 72(6), the designation of essential services must be made "before the strike or lockout has commenced." This is a significant improvement in the legislation over the kind of situation we found ourselves in in February, March and April of last year. Let me also assure you that if a designation is made through the essential services process but it is not being adhered to, there are provisions in the legislation that provide for it to be filed in court and that compel the parties to adhere to it. Finally, if they seek to not respect an order of the court, the employer will have the support of the government with regard to contempt-of-court proceedings.
L. Reid: I appreciate the comment on the designation, but that is exactly the point I'm trying to reach. Who will assure the taxpaying public that a designation under essential service levels in health is a reasonable one? This minister stated previously that the designations were in place; essential service levels were realized. The public did not agree with that notion. They were not impressed with the level of care they received during the last labour disruption. I'm not convinced that there are further assurances in this legislation because it still says that essential service levels will be maintained. I'd be very interested in your comment as to how essential service levels are designated. The comment that they can make some kind of appeal to the court system if it's not satisfactory is completely unsatisfactory when you're talking about somebody's immediate health care needs. The court system in this province is not so efficient that they could actually have their needs met by the court system prior to having some ongoing serious health difficulty.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member has to decide whether or not she believes that there ought to be strikes in these areas. That's the first question. If she doesn't think there should be, then she should state that for the record. If she thinks there should be, then she has to recognize that levels of service are going to be less than that which is normally provided under
[ Page 4641 ]
essential services designation. Therefore there will always be complaints from the public that services aren't at the rate they should be. So you must make your determination first, hon. member, as to whether or not you support the right to strike in that field. If you do support the right to strike in that field, then you have to accept the fact that essential service designations will be below normal staffing levels. That's the way it works under our legislation.
L. Reid: I'll refer specifically to a Vancouver Sun article of Tuesday, April 14, 1992. It looks at the aged, who are described as the silent sufferers in hospital disputes. There's a woman in here who is responsible for the care of her mother, who happens to be 77 years old. Her position is that people absolutely have the right to strike. She needs assurances, as does the official opposition today, that there will be something in place that allows for a compromise position. I can appreciate having the minister stand up today to tell me that service levels will be less; but if you are going to stand before us today and say that under Bill 84 essential service levels will be maintained so that the health and welfare of the citizens of the province is not compromised, you need to say a little bit more than that they will be less than what they are normally.
The articles I have with me today, which I am prepared to cite in extreme detail, suggest that people have a right to expect something from their tax system, and they have a right to be assured that the legislation you are prepared to stand behind will actually deliver reasonable health care to them in British Columbia. You've not answered that concern, and I trust that you will do so.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm confident that through the process we've established and the Labour Relations Board, there will be a reasonable level of health care available to British Columbians during a work disruption.
L. Reid: I appreciate the dialogue, but at the end of the day, if you have a sick individual in your family who requires ongoing medical care, you're looking for a little more than conversation. You're looking for something a little bit more concrete. All of these individuals take no issue with the right to strike; they don't take any issue with essential service.... They need to know exactly what that means in terms of a reasonable level of care being delivered to individuals in their families. Friday, April 10, 1992: "Hospitalized Doctor Charges Strike Left Him Without Food." We can go through example after example where the Minister of Health, as you did, stood up in this House and suggested that essential service levels were being maintained. At the end of the day, what does that mean? Were we delivering a reasonable level of care to individuals in this province? I would submit to you today that we were not. This particular piece of legislation, which you cite as being so much better, will not deliver an increased level of service or even have the ability to maintain what was done last time, which was woefully inadequate. Again, can you address essential service levels for hospital care in the province?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should tell me what she is proposing. Is she proposing that we set the levels in legislation?
L. Reid: Each of these writers asks for a compromise. They ask for some assurance from this government that you will safeguard the health of their family member or themselves should they require medical care. If your response, as the government of British Columbia, is to set the levels in legislation, that is your choice. I think we are looking to an open government that, hopefully, has some innovation and ingenuity at its disposal to come up with something that will compensate the taxpayers for investing the majority of their tax dollars in the health care system, which this government continues to say is one of the finest in the world. If that's the case, discussion is fine. The legislation you continue to cite as being the finest labour legislation in this country needs some backup. What are you prepared to do today to back up this particular piece of legislation?
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know if the hon. member is asking these questions because she has a mail-out to do or something, but let's get serious. It's straightforward. We have legislation that provides a process for the establishment of essential service levels. It's not for us to determine what those levels should be; it's for the parties -- the hospitals and the unions -- to work out the appropriate level. The Liberal opposition will never be satisfied with the level that's there; that's their job. They will criticize whatever levels are established, but they can't criticize the process, nor the legislation that establishes the process. They're not prepared -- nor should they be, in my view -- to take the view that there should be a prohibition on strikes. They have to recognize that legislation cannot logically define the level of service. There's a process for doing that; we've done that. On top of that, we've made sure that there's a provision in place to ensure that it occurs prior to a strike or lockout commencing.
L. Reid: Friday, April 24, 1992: "We are down to 35 percent of our normal staff, and we have a 95 percent bed occupancy." The minister said: "Let's get serious." I'm deadly serious. This is not about what the official opposition stands for today; this is about what the taxpaying public has asked this government for and was promised, frankly, by this government. Have you reassured us today? Absolutely not. Have you reassured the taxpaying public? No. Yet you continue to stand before us as the open government in this province and suggest that we somehow have the finest health care system in the world. If you are going to leave essential service in this legislation as it applies to health care, you must deliver on that promise. What you have said today has not made any commitment toward that promise. I am looking for something that is concrete, reasonable and innovative -- all the things the New
[ Page 4642 ]
Democratic Party promised they would deliver to the people of British Columbia. I await your response.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I know there are other members of the caucus and, indeed, other members of the House who wish to engage in this debate.
The minister should always keep in mind, when he's answering questions posed by the opposition, that very often those questions aren't created in the opposition's offices, but rather in the minds of the public, and are passed on to us to ask him directly. That is part of our job. So when the minister....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The Finance minister says that we've been there. I would suggest that both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour quickly forgot what it was like to be in opposition and their role of the advocate.
The line of questioning that the member for Richmond East brought forward are questions that she's quoting. If the minister will listen, she's quoting directly from letters and comments that were made by the public during a strike that occurred under the mandate of this government. They are asking for the Minister of Labour and the New Democratic government to come up with some provisions and some changes to the legislation that would improve the level of service that their family members and they, as individuals, received during that labour dispute.
The minister can stand up and be as smug as he wants, and try to shrug off these questions as if they're irrelevant, as if they don't have anything to do with this section or as if the minister doesn't care. But he should keep in mind who he's answering to. He's not answering to us, hon. Chair; he's answering to the public. He's answering to the individuals who are writing and asking the minister these types of questions.
That is why, when we ask questions on section 72 or about the implementation of the wording of this section, we expect to hear an answer. It's not for our benefit necessarily, but for the benefit of the general public. The minister has certainly been in this House long enough to know that that is the intent. I would ask him to please answer the questions in that context, keeping in mind that, despite the fact that he may despise the opposition, it's pretty hard to be a minister of the Crown and despise the general public.
The Chair: Order, hon. member. I would remind all hon. members, before recognizing the minister, that questions may be put, but there are rules with respect to tediousness and repetition. Answers cannot be insisted upon.
Hon. M. Sihota: Judging from the weekend press, the opposition Liberals haven't learned what the job of the opposition is yet. But let me say this, just to prove the point: not one of the issues canvassed by the hon. member dealt with any of the amendments he's got on the floor of the House.
Hon. Chair, I agree with your comments; the hon. member should confine his comments to the amendment on the floor.
G. Farrell-Collins: We've been on this amendment for some time now, hon. Chair, and if the minister wanted to call into question the order of the questions or the relevancy....
Interjection.
The Chair: Order, please. I would ask the hon. the minister to come to order, so that the member who is speaking may speak uninterrupted. Please continue, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Chair, I appreciate your intervention.
We're on the amendment that deals with an economic threat to the province. In fact, I canvassed that at some length, the Leader of the Opposition canvassed that at some length and the member for Okanagan East canvassed that at some length. The Health critic dealt with issues that involved health. If the minister wanted to call her on her order at that time, he should have been able to do so. But....
[4:00]
Interjection.
The Chair: Hon. members, the Chair is resisting referring to the standing orders. I know that all members know what is parliamentary and what is unparliamentary. I would prefer that we exercise our insights and personal discipline to the extent that the Chair can allow the reasonable latitude that I believe is necessary in order that exchanges may be fruitful and useful to all members. With that, I would ask the hon. member who was speaking to please continue.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, we are attempting to get some answers from the minister. I take the Chair's ruling and the Chair's comments to heart, because we are not trying to be tedious, nor are we trying to be repetitious. But it is important that we try, on behalf of the public, to ask the minister questions, and we hope that the minister, on behalf of the government, would answer those questions of the public in an open and honest manner without the smugness that usually accompanies them.
So, hon. Chair, seeing that the minister obviously isn't going to deal with the issue, I would yield to my colleague from Vancouver-Langara.
V. Anderson: One of the interesting parts of this bill as a whole was the definitions section, because it laid out an understanding of the meaning of the words as they arrived within the bill itself. In this section of the bill we come to three key words: health, safety and welfare. These words are very key, and it's strange to me that when they are so important to the well-being of the province there is no definition in the bill for these particular words. I expected there would be when they
[ Page 4643 ]
have such an important place. And when we ask the minister what they mean, he simply replies, "I mean what I mean," which doesn't help me at all in understanding what any of these three words mean.
So I go to the dictionary. The unfortunate part is that I'm not sure which dictionary the minister will use. I'm sure if I go to other dictionaries I will come up with different meanings. But in regard to the definition of "welfare," let me simply read the definition that is here in this particular Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, a Merriam-Webster publication: "Welfare. The state of doing well, especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being or prosperity."
In discussion with others in this House, the minister has indicated that perhaps the amendment is not in order, because it would limit the definition of "welfare" instead of extending it. The minister went so far as to say, "I could put up an argument that if the amendment were passed, it would limit the definition," thereby at least implying that the definition of "welfare" in his mind is broad enough at this point to include not only the economic viability of the province but any other aspect of the activities in the province that have to do with the prosperity, good fortune, happiness or well-being of people of the province.
If it's true that his definition is that broad -- and he has indicated in a number of ways that it is -- then I think he should make that very clear to us, because the same would no doubt apply when we come to a discussion of health and safety: it's the broadest possible definition available. If I've heard the minister right -- and I'd like him to confirm this -- he's saying that whatever definition the board or he, as minister, may use, this is the definition that the law implies. There are no limitations whatsoever to the meaning of this word, as long as they can find a dictionary someplace that will justify the definition they want to take.
If the minister is saying that he is taking unto himself sole discretion for defining the meaning of the word in the circumstances where it applies, which is what he has indicated, it would be the circumstances of the moment that would make the definition. Therefore the definition would be up to the interpretation of the minister in that moment. On the other hand, if the minister does not choose to make that definition himself, then the definition can be made in whatever way and whatever framework the board so desires. So if they want to include economics or health or safety or any other aspect within that definition, they're free to do so.
I understood the minister to be saying that they wanted the broadest possible definition. If so, nothing that affects the prosperity or the well-being or the health or the happiness of people is excluded. If so, I would be interested to hear the minister's response.
Hon. M. Sihota: I have answered the question.
G. Wilson: In picking up on the comments of the member for Vancouver-Langara, may I say that the minister has indeed not answered the question. By virtue of the fact that the minister has not answered the question, I think that in itself speaks volumes as to what is intended by this bill, because as we review it, Hansard will show that in earlier sections of this bill, when we made comment with respect to the protection and well-being of people, the minister said: "We will deal with that when we get to section 72." In other areas where we talked about the protection of young people, particularly with the question of the welfare of students in schools under a work stoppage, the minister said: "We'll deal with that in section 72." And when we talked about issues of marine safety and about the B.C. Ferries and about the problems associated with the interruption of work, especially with the economic well-being of the province, which is exactly what this amendment is all about, the minister at that time said: "We'll deal with that in section 72."
Well, in this debate it's become abundantly evident what the strategy of the government is. That is to simply allow us to go through an exercise of virtual frustration in the initial stages of this bill, with the promise that somehow there are going to be some kind of amendments forthcoming -- both publicly stated and privately negotiated -- because we were going to deal with them at a later date. We have an amendment here. In dealing with this amendment, we start to look at the economic well-being of the province itself. What we're now seeing is the minister saying: "I've answered the question. We dealt with that before. There is no need for us to put in any kind of recognition of the economic well-being of the province."
The amendment on this particular issue addresses virtually every resident on Vancouver Island, because on the question of the natural extension of our highways -- the ferry service -- people on Vancouver Island want to know if the economic well-being of their communities is going to be protected in this legislation in the eventuality of a prolonged work stoppage in that industry, which we all hope there will not be. I note that the collective agreement currently being negotiated is yet to be ratified, and on the weekend I noted that, in fact, there is some considerable evidence to suggest that it may not be. So we might find that this minister's inability or unwillingness to simply answer a simple question is as much as turning to the people of Vancouver Island, the Sunshine Coast, Powell River and other areas served and saying: "Trust me. Leave it up to me. I'll determine your economic well-being and your economic welfare, and I'll be the determining factor as to how hurt you will become economically before there is a need to use the powers that the minister has provided under section 72(2)(b) with his initiative to be able to come forward and deal with this section on essential services."
We're not arguing necessarily that essential services should be assigned to the marine services of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. What we are asking is to what extent this language is going to provide protection for every resident on Vancouver Island, the Sunshine Coast, Powell River, the Gulf Islands and other areas served by the B.C. Ferry Corporation where, because of the natural extension of the highway being the marine services, they will have to have some measure of protection and safety to recognize their economic
[ Page 4644 ]
well-being in the event of a prolonged work stoppage. That's not an unreasonable thing to ask. It isn't unreasonable for us to say that the practitioners in the field -- the people who deal with the negotiation on a day-to-day basis -- tell us this language is inadequate. It doesn't provide the same level of protection that the people of British Columbia are demanding.
This is not something that the opposition is constructing or suggesting. Let it be clear that in this amendment that we are putting forward now, we are seeking a balance between the legal right to strike, which we support, and the protection and well-being -- economic well-being in particular -- of the residents of Vancouver Island, Powell River, Sunshine Coast, Gulf Islands and every other community that's served by the B.C. Ferry Corporation and any other industry in which the economic welfare of the province is at stake when we get into prolonged work stoppages.
To simply have this minister say, "I mean what I mean when I say what I say because I am what I am, I'm Popeye the Sailor Man," is a ridiculous notion in a debate such as this. I think the minister should be here to respond to that.
V. Anderson: Hon. Chair, sometimes when we try to look at the global picture, I think we forget the significance of the individuals who are caught up in this struggle. The people in the community are concerned not just with the overall well-being of the economy in the province, but they interpret the meaning of that economy and its overall scope as it relates to their day-to-day economy. A great many people depend on daily income, not just weekly, monthly or yearly income. When we think of people first, we need to think of all the realities that are there. The structure that people have of their daily income being essential to them is part of what we're trying to discover -- how this can be dealt with in the legislation.
In the concern for union members and for employers, it seems that often those who depend on daily income are overlooked. They cannot get to work because a ferry, a SkyTrain or whatever is out of service, and therefore they do not earn their daily income that day. There are people who depend on medications on a regular daily basis, and they must get to the hospital or wherever it's provided to them. If they're unable to get there because there is no consideration that their need is essential, then we have missed in our understanding of the legislation. The legislation that we should be working toward here is not legislation that makes it inconvenient for people to get the necessities of life, but it should be legislation that makes it possible and which helps people to get the security they need. Since the minister is not willing to define his meaning in a way that the ordinary person can understand, we are left up in the air. We are left with uncertainty. The community at large is becoming more and more aware that as this bill progresses through the Legislature, they are being left out in the cold -- not just because it is becoming winter, but because they cannot understand the message that's being conveyed to them.
[4:15]
When I go home on weekends, the question is raised by individuals: what does this mean to me as an individual? I ask the hon. minister: how does the essential daily income of those who are requiring their daily income...? Some people go to work on a part-time, daily basis, receive their pay in the evening for the work they did that day, and that's for the food they have the next day. That is essential for them. What provision is the minister making in the economic welfare of the people for their needs? I would ask the minister to let us know how he is responding to those daily current needs.
Hon. M. Sihota: Any party that's involved in a dispute can make an application to the LRB to seek designation under the essential services provision.
V. Anderson: When the minister says "any party," is he saying that any citizen within the community who is affected by this dispute, whether a part of the employer's group or a specific union group, can apply to the Labour Relations Board for a response to their essential need?
Hon. M. Sihota: As has always been the case, only the parties can.
L. Reid: In our previous discussion, the minister made some comment about it being time to get serious on this issue. On April 6, 1992 -"Labour Dispute Affected Man's Care, Says Family." In fact, this individual died. The death of a 70-year-old man two days after he was released from hospital is being investigated. The position of the family is that his care was not appropriate while he was there. They made that determination; other people worthy of having that opinion -- skilled, trained individuals -- supported that. During the entire time this was going on, hon. minister, this government was hailing forth that essential service levels were in place.
I take great offence that you can, on the one hand, suggest essential services and, on the other, have people dying, with the minister saying to me: "Well, what would you have us do?" Speaking on behalf of the official opposition, I would have this government make some commitment to the health and welfare and personal safety of the taxpaying public in this province. I believe that that is the mandate of any government. I believe a government which is not bereft of ideas is going to do more than explore possible ways to ensure this doesn't happen. I think if it were a member of the family of anyone who sits in this chamber, we would want more than the trite statement that essential service levels were in place. I come back to my earlier comment. How are those levels determined? Is there a formula for that? Is it a percentage of staff that would currently be working in a hospital? Would that allow it to be decreased over time?
The second part of the question is: is there any way to evaluate the time-line that it would take to downsize an institution? Hospitals such as St. Paul's or Children's Hospital in Vancouver are huge organizations. You cannot indicate in a matter of days, from an edict from a
[ Page 4645 ]
Victoria office, that somehow a different operation or dynamic is in place. Those things don't happen overnight. When crises arise, as with the death of this gentleman, you cannot simply say: "We have now ensured that a different essential service level is in place to improve the situation." We have very simple language that does not address the very complex problem at all.
I am still waiting for this minister to come forward with some ideas that he touched on earlier when he asked the official opposition: "Would you have us fix essential service levels?" I would ask the minister if he's willing to explore that in more detail and tell this House exactly what he intended by that comment. On Friday, April 24, we had frustrated patients speaking out as deteriorating service took its toll. Some of us lived through this last time; some of us did not.
Hon. M. Sihota: Point of order. We have an amendment before us that deals with economic threat. The questions have nothing to do with the amendment that's before us. I am quite happy to answer the questions when they're in order. I'm not going to answer them at this point, because I would take the view that they're out of order with respect to economic threat.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. The point is well taken. I would ask the member to relate her line of questioning to the amendment that is before us.
L. Reid: With direct reference to the amendment, this entire discussion has a direct economic impact on the delivery of service in this province, because the health care industry is taking a large percentage of tax dollars. For the minister to suggest that it is somehow unrelated is facetious at best. There is a direct relation among tax dollars, health care delivery and decisions reached by this government that are going to directly impact health care delivery in this province. My point is that economic impacts and hospital delivery are absolutely intertwined.
My question to the minister: is there a plan in place? I spoke earlier of having some kind of coordinated effort and the ability to increase or downsize staff to correspond to crises. I made the point earlier in debate that this section is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. You have to recognize the unique needs of individual hospitals. That does have an economic impact, because downsizing or creating an essential service level and doing it consistently across the board is not going to meet the needs of taxpayers. That is the economic impact that I would wish this minister and this government to consider, and I await a response. Who in each hospital is responsible for the plan that's going to balance economic impacts and essential service levels?
L. Stephens: I speak in favour of this amendment to add "or major disruption to the economy" after the word "welfare." I notice that this was part of the old legislation, where it included health, safety, education or the economic welfare of the province. I know the minister spoke briefly about this, but I would like to ask him again why this particular section was removed or omitted from the new legislation. Why were the words "economic welfare of the province" omitted?
Hon. G. Clark: On a point of order, I've been here for an hour, and I've heard only two questions repeated over and over again by members of the opposition. It's clearly tedious and repetitious. The minister either has to keep getting up or not answer it. The fact is that members on the opposite side are simply repeating themselves.
J. Tyabji: On this point of order, we have asked a number of questions. This question has been asked in a roundabout way. We have yet to have the minister deal with this question directly, because it has never been asked as succinctly as it has just now. We have had no answer. If the minister feels that he has provided an answer, we'd be happy to hear it again, because we didn't hear it, and we've been here for the entire debate.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Chair, I remind members of the opposition that members can ask questions, but members of the executive council have no obligation to answer questions. Whether it's tedious and repetitious is a fact with respect to your questions. The fact that the minister has not answered it to your satisfaction is of no relevance whatsoever to the rules of the House. The Opposition House Leader, by her own statements, has admitted that they have repeatedly asked these questions. I ask you to call them to order.
The Chair: The point is very well taken. Just a little while ago, I reminded hon. members that they may certainly put their questions to the ministers, but there does come a point at which the Chair has to consider whether members are insisting upon answers or becoming repetitious and tedious. Our standing orders make this very clear, and I'm sure that all members are familiar with them. I would just ask the members to keep that in mind when they're persisting in a particular line of questioning.
J. Tyabji: With regard to the point of order that the Government House Leader brought up, if he reviews Hansard, he will see that my comments were that we may have canvassed the issue in a roundabout way. We have never asked that question of the minister specifically.
Also, the minister has stood up and given us responses to the roundabout way in which we've asked him, but because we haven't asked that question specifically.... If he's not going to respond, fine, but we would like it on record that he's not going to respond.
The Chair: The matter has been reviewed for the benefit of all hon. members. In the future, I would ask hon. members to keep in mind the limitations upon debate in committee.
L. Stephens: In section 72(2), it says:
"If the minister
(b) on the minister's own initiative
[ Page 4646 ]
considers that a dispute poses a threat to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia, the minister may direct the board to designate as essential services those facilities, productions and services that the board considers necessary or essential...."
Would the minister provide an answer as to what kinds of initiatives he would direct the board to make?
D. Streifel: I would just ask the hon. member for Langley to continue reading. The question will be answered, as it has been answered by the minister time and time again. It's a determination of the board. For the opposition to continually ask the minister to prejudge a hearing that may or may not happen in the future is completely irrelevant, and it's out of order under standing order 61.
W. Hurd: I've been following the debate on this amendment with a great deal of interest, and also the reluctance of the minister to answer questions respecting it. I think it's important to put on the record that this particular section does narrow the parameters of essential services in the province, whether or not the board has to deal with it. It's absolutely true that the provision of the economic well-being of the province has been eliminated as a consideration by the board for designating an essential service.
You know, I was struck by the comments of the hon. Minister of Finance about tedious and repetitious questions from the opposition. This is a bill -- this particular section, as well -- brought in by this government as the sole purpose for holding this fall sitting of the legislative session, paying MLAs $7,500 a day to be here to debate and pass one specific piece of legislation. If that doesn't amount to tediousness and repetitiousness, I don't know what does. This bill could have waited until the spring. The minister could have had all winter to answer questions from the opposition and to ponder debate on this bill. Instead, the government of the day chose to bring forward this bill, unnecessary at this particular time, and to hold a specific session of the Legislature to deal with it; then they have the audacity to call it tedious and repetitious when the opposition asks legitimate questions about essential services.
Hon. M. Sihota: On a point of order. In the midst of that bombast, I've yet to hear one comment that relates to the amendment that's on the floor.
The Chair: The matter before us is the amendment to section 72. I would ask the member to address the section.
The Chair will attempt to enlighten members from time to time with respect to the rules of the committee.
W. Hurd: I welcome the opportunity to engage in debate with the minister about what I consider to be an essential service, or an essential economic consideration in the province, and that involves the forest industry. As you may recall, back in the early seventies that was a subject of intervention by a previous NDP government. As early as this spring we had an involvement by the minister in the pulp dispute, when he tried to act as a mediator or a catalyst for settlement. That particular dispute was having a tremendous impact on small communities -- not to mention the coffers of the province of British Columbia.
I think there's ample reason to argue that the amendment being debated in this House, which essentially tries to recognize the importance of the economic impact of an essential service, is badly needed. At the time of the pulp dispute this spring, the government of the day was losing millions of dollars in revenue.
[4:30]
D. Streifel: On a point of order, I would bring the House's attention to a time in history, during the pulp dispute....
The Chair: Hon. member, that is not a valid point of order; that's a matter of debate.
W. Hurd: We have to assume that since the minister took such an active role in getting that dispute settled, he considered it to be an essential service as well.
It's troubling that if we leave this section of the bill as it is, we seem to be saying that the minister himself will have to intercede in the event of future disruptions in the pulp and paper and forest industries. As the minister may know, that still accounts for about half the economic activity in this province. It is concentrated in small-town British Columbia and has a tremendously negative impact on the lives of individual British Columbians. Instead of allowing the Labour Relations Board to do its work under the old section of this bill, it will now be up to the minister to make under-the-table deals on strikes that may have an economic impact on people of the province. It's simply unacceptable to the opposition that the minister has decided, for whatever reason, not to answer questions with respect to this important issue before us in the House.
It's equally troubling, given the fact that the government brought forward this section of the bill in a total package and that it was the only bill they brought forward during this legislative session, that they wouldn't welcome the opportunity, under this particular amendment and section, to engage in a discussion about why there is no longer a provision for the Labour Relations Board to be involved in a pulp and paper dispute as essential services when it has such a major economic impact. The minister will have to continue to haul the parties into this office -- as a previous Labour minister, Mr. Bill King, did back in the seventies -- to try and settle a dispute which has a negative impact not only on the people and small communities but also on the revenues of the province of British Columbia.
We're told time and time again about the government's billion dollar deficit. Surely the millions of dollars lost during a strike by the major industry in this province.... We're now being asked to swallow the idea that there's no role for the Labour Relations Board to play in that, other than some sort of under-the-table deal by the minister. It's just unacceptable. We don't expect any answer to that, and I doubt we would get one. It certainly has to be put on the public record that in the event of a major disruption in the forest industry,
[ Page 4647 ]
there's no essential service provisions to allow for communities to survive or for the revenues lost to government not to continue indefinitely. It's a sad day indeed.
Amendments negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 17 | ||
| Warnke | Reid | Wilson |
| Tyabji | Farrell-Collins | Gingell |
| Stephens | Weisgerber | Serwa |
| De Jong | Neufeld | Symons |
| Anderson | Hurd | Dalton |
| Jarvis | K. Jones | |
| NAYS -- 35 | ||
| Petter | Boone | Sihota |
| Edwards | Cashore | Charbonneau |
| Schreck | Lortie | Lali |
| Giesbrecht | Conroy | Smallwood |
| Hagen | Gabelmann | Clark |
| Zirnhelt | Blencoe | B. Jones |
| Copping | Lovick | Ramsey |
| Hammell | Farnworth | Evans |
| Dosanjh | O'Neill | Doyle |
| Hartley | Streifel | Randall |
| Garden | Kasper | Brewin |
| Janssen | Miller | |
On section 72.
J. Weisgerber: The question of essential services is an interesting one. I think most people would understand that there are a range of services recognized as being essential. When a labour dispute occurs, there are a number of areas quite broadly recognized as being essential, and there are processes for determining the basic level of service required. The health care system is probably the best example, but certainly essential services are not, and should not be, restricted to those areas.
Our concern is that in the event of a strike that lasts for a long period of time, there starts to be, not only inconvenience, but it goes beyond that to where it becomes harmful to people, outside of the employer and employees. As we saw with the IWA strike in 1986, a strike can affect the economy and the well-being of a whole province, the viability of businesses not directly related to the dispute and communities. So I think we are looking at a way and an appropriate time in which the Labour Relations Board, the government, some body with authority, can step in and make the declaration that this dispute has had too serious an effect on the economy of the province, on third parties. We are looking for a mechanism that will allow intervention. We mention the economy, but indeed, the transportation systems provide an example. Ferry service from Vancouver Island to the mainland may not be essential over a 24-hour period. It's very, very inconvenient to have a disruption of service for an hour or two or a day, but if the dispute continues, it then becomes more than simply an inconvenience; it starts to threaten the communities. It starts to threaten whole areas....
Hon. M. Sihota: That's why we have essential services legislation.
[4:45]
J. Weisgerber: The member says that's why we have essential services legislation. Indeed, that's the reason we're standing here on section 72 suggesting that these provisions in the bill aren't adequate. That's the reason we're looking for changes in section 72 of Bill 84, because there doesn't appear to be any recognition in this legislation of the effect of long strikes on the economy. There doesn't seem to be a recognition that transportation systems, for example, can't be disrupted for long periods of time.
We regularly use the example of B.C. Ferries, but B.C. Rail also provides an example. B.C. Rail could be and has been on strike for several weeks. It's a tremendous inconvenience to the communities and the industries served by the railway. But there comes a point in a B.C. Rail strike where it starts to threaten the very industries and the very communities that it serves. It seems to me that it's at that point that the government -- the Labour Relations Board -- has to be prepared to step in, and we believe it's under this essential services section that there should be specific provision for that.
Education is another example of where a strike in the public school system or in the college system or at a university for a period of days or weeks is a serious inconvenience to the students. But if the strike extends beyond that to weeks or months, the educational year is threatened. We believe it's necessary that the legislation be structured in such a way as to make sure that when those parties not directly involved in the strike become so inconvenienced that the livelihoods and well-being of the communities and the people are genuinely threatened, then the interests of the two parties have to be set aside or at least considered in the context of the interests of the broader community. We believe that section 72 doesn't adequately address that.
Before I move the amendment standing on the order paper, I would like to have the minister explain to me how he believes those kinds of situations that I've described are covered under this legislation, so I can consider the importance of bringing forward an amendment if I don't hear the kinds of things that I hope to hear from the minister.
Hon. M. Sihota: I have a sneaking suspicion that no matter what I say, you're going to introduce your amendment in any event, unless I say exactly what you just said.
Just a couple of comments, hon. Chair. Over the course of my brief tenure in this responsibility as Minister of Labour, I've been involved in a lot of disputes. It's certainly one of the more interesting portfolios in government, quite frankly. We saw, for example, a dispute with respect to the Coquihalla highway, when maintenance workers on the highway, I believe it was, had gone out on strike. It was about a year ago, in winter. We've seen the HEU dispute. We've
[ Page 4648 ]
seen the Ferries' dispute, which you referred to in terms of the legal action taken at that time. We've seen the pulp dispute. In every dispute that we've been involved in -- and I'm sure as you reflect back on your experience in the executive council, you would agree with this -- someone can always make a case that it's an essential services dispute. I'm sure that, in your time, your cabinet had to take a look at the two-month-long strike in the riding adjacent to yours, in terms of educational services in the Fort St. John school district, and make determinations as to whether or not they were captured by the essential services provisions.
The section before us is such that I anticipate, given the fact that any party can now make an application, that there may be many applications in terms of determining how the board is going to determine the words "health, safety and welfare." We'll watch with great interest how those determinations are made in the time ahead. You also know from your own experience -- having been in executive council, and having received those weekly reports which I'm sure you received in terms of labour disputes in the province -- that there were many ways in which a dispute could be handled, that every dispute had its different dimension to it, and that there are different ways in which one could stick-handle one's way through a dispute. Those calls are the calls that are made by the Minister of Labour in conjunction with the executive council.
You know and I know that in many of the cases you saw -- and in many of the cases I've seen -- the easiest thing for anyone to argue is that it's essential. The prudent thing for a Minister of Labour to do is to determine how it is that a dispute can be resolved, and to exercise the options best available to the minister. There are some options here in terms of the direction the minister can provide under section 72(2)(b). I guess that that has to be considered in the light of all the other remedies available to the minister and has be exercised accordingly.
So, hon. member, I'm not going to prejudge how the board would determine it, as I've already said. I'm not going to engage in sort of hypothetical situations, nor, quite frankly, am I going to support your amendment. I think you know as well as I do that there are a number of remedies available to a minister in this legislation that the minister can use to bring an end to a dispute. You know as well as I do that everybody can make an argument in every dispute that it's essential. You know as well as I do that the parties can make an argument in terms of "the health, safety and welfare of the residents of British Columbia." You know as well as I know that if the board makes a determination contrary to what you think would be essential, there will be ample opportunity for you and others to bring about the political heat that's necessary if ministers are not acting in keeping with their public interest responsibilities.
J. Weisgerber: The minister says that any party can come forward, but I think it has been pretty well clarified that only the two parties directly involved in the dispute can make a request under this section. It is the third parties, the people directly affected but not a party to the dispute, that are the concern we are expressing. It is their lack of any opportunity that we are addressing with debate on this section. Indeed, the experience I have had is that the government was reluctant to involve itself in ending a strike. The minister mentions the teachers' strike in the Peace River North school district. There was a great deal of pressure to end that dispute, but there was a reluctance, obviously, to have the government directly involved unless it was essential.
The difference was that we were operating, as this minister has done to date, under Bill 19, which gave the minister and the cabinet the ultimate authority. I'm not at all satisfied that this legislation gives the minister the options that he has enjoyed to date. I don't believe that Bill 84 allows the minister to make the kinds of decisions he has been making over the last year or so.
I question whether the minister, in the situation that arose in 1986, could end the IWA strike under Bill 84. I doubt very much, even if he wanted to under this new legislation, that he could end a BCR strike that might last for a long period of time. So the experience that the minister and I have had was under the legislation we have in place now. That legislation has served us very well in these circumstances, and it has not seen government leaping in at the first opportunity, but standing back and hoping that the issue would resolve itself. All parties were armed with the comfort that there was an avenue with which to pursue the end of the strike, and that's what we don't see in Bill 84.
That's why we are concerned with the wording in subsections (1) and (2). The minister has indicated that he's not prepared to accept our amendment. I'll take a chance anyway, just on the off chance that he will have heard my words, will have considered what I said and will have decided to go for one. Let's take one that seems reasonable, seems to be well-drafted and seems to deal with an issue of concern to both of us.
With that, I move the amendment to section 72 standing in the name of the member for Okanagan-Vernon.
The Chair: Hon. member, the Chair anticipated that you were prepared to take that chance. However, I have reviewed your amendment at some length, and I rule that it essentially recanvasses the matter just negatived under the two amendments by the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. I am sure the hon. member was aware of that, because he was here to observe that debate.
The Chair would refer the member to Sir Erskine May, twenty-first edition, at page 491: "Inadmissible amendments." There are two items there that I think are worthwhile: "An amendment cannot be admitted if it is governed by or dependent upon amendments which have already been negatived." And: "An amendment must not be inconsistent with, or contrary to, the bill as so far agreed to by the committee, nor must it be inconsistent with a decision of the committee upon a former amendment."
I am satisfied that the matter, although expanded in your amendment, is of concern to the committee, but I think that it essentially recanvasses a matter that was
[ Page 4649 ]
previously negatived. I would therefore rule it out of order.
J. Weisgerber: Mr. Chairman, obviously I'm disappointed, but I would never question your judgments. I do think, however, that the amendment did serve the purpose of being very specific in identifying the areas of concern -- namely, the economy, public transportation systems, education and other social services. We can continue to debate the importance of those issues, and we will -- for a while, anyway -- not so much in the sense....
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: It's unfortunate that the member for Nanaimo, having been denied his place in the House to debate on his feet, seems to be determined to debate as he sits. I would invite him to join this debate. Let him tell us, in his very clear and elegant and wonderful terms, that that member....
Interjections.
J. Weisgerber: They don't want to hear from him. I understand the Whip's reluctance to let him take his feet.
The Chair: Hon. member, just before you begin, I will take a second to remind you -- as I'm sure you well know -- to be strictly relevant to the amendment as you proceed. The matter you were attempting to move was ruled out of order.
J. Weisgerber: I wouldn't dream of speaking to the amendment now that it has been turned down by the Chair, and I would only want to speak to the section itself.
There are reasons for us to look to the sections themselves for some indication of the opportunities that they provide to the minister. We heard the minister say that he has some experience now. He recognized that I, having been in cabinet for a few years, also had the opportunity to be involved when the government was asked to become involved in a dispute. I would like the minister to tell us how he believes this section enables him to know when the end of a strike is essential to the well-being of British Columbia or a region or a community or perhaps an industry or two, and that it would be clear not only to him but to many British Columbians. When the minister recognizes that those difficulties are there and that there needs to be some action -- as he has done in the past -- is the minister telling us that under section 72 the opportunity exists for him to deal with a prolonged strike? If there are issues around it affecting people outside of the two parties whose well-being, economic or otherwise, is threatened, will he be able to use section 72 to remedy that situation?
[5:00]
Hon. M. Sihota: Firstly, only the parties themselves can make an application.
Secondly, you keep on referring to using these provisions to end a dispute. Remember, all this section does is control a strike; it wouldn't end a dispute. I take it that it's a matter of semantics. I just want to make sure that we're not looking at this section as the section that ends a dispute.
Thirdly, you made some comments with respect to the minister having proper authority at the end of the day. Let's not forget that this section is a substantial improvement on Bill 19, because a minister could not move on an issue under Bill 19 until receiving a report by a commissioner. I can tell you that having to deal with Bill 19 on this kind of issue by having to wait for a report that was not always forthcoming frustrated our ability to move with dispatch. I'm thinking of the HEU situation as a good example of that. This section removes that impediment and gives the minister direct access instead of indirect access.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps what the minister is saying is that we can expect him and his government to intervene much more quickly to make changes in essential services in the future. I take it from the minister's comments that he has felt frustrated in his lack of ability to make a broader kind of judgment, as it relates to essential services. Is that what the minister is suggesting? Will he anticipate moving in more quickly? Will he anticipate looking at areas of essential services more quickly under this bill than he could under Bill 19?
Hon. M. Sihota: It means that I have more scope than I had under Bill 19, that's for sure. Quite frankly, I think the answer to your question is essentially that it would give me more latitude and scope to look at a dispute and consider this section. It would take quite a dispute, I think, to move in on this section when there are other remedies available, but at least the impediments are removed.
V. Anderson: We were talking about the process and how quickly the minister can act. As I read through this, I see the minister can take immediate action and direct the board to action. If I read this properly, once the direction goes to the board, the board can ask that a mediation division step in. They have 15 days to make their report. There's a two-week gap right then. Having made their report to the board, the board can take another 30 days. Essentially, 45 days have passed before the essential service arrangements are actually in place in the middle of the strike process. This seems to say that if it is a critical, essential situation, which it's supposed to be, the process is not necessarily to make any quick decision or action, because the board can take 15 days with the mediation, 30 days to make a decision, then, after that decision is made, sit down with the parties to work out the requirements of the essential service measure to be put in place. It takes at least 45 days, plus the time it takes to work out the arrangements for the essential service -- at least two months, if you follow through the logic of what's written here -- to put an essential service measure in place. That's a long time.
[ Page 4650 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, let's not forget that no strikes can take place until the designation process is completed. Those familiar with labour relations understand that it takes some time for the essential services process to be completed. It takes longer, for example, if you have a lot of facilities; a shorter time if you have only one facility. There can be no strike or lockout under 72(6), which says: "If the minister makes a direction under subsection (2) before a strike or lockout has commenced, the parties shall not strike or lock out until the designation of essential services is made by the board." We built that in there.
V. Anderson: Subsection (7) says: "If the minister makes a direction under subsection (2) after a strike or lockout has commenced, the parties may continue the strike or lockout subject to any designation of essential services by the board." So the strike does continue even after the minister has begun to intercede. The strike is ongoing while these activities are underway.
Hon. M. Sihota: In the context of labour relations, that section is there for the following kind of situation. Let's say that there is a dispute and that it goes on for quite some time. And then let's say that the minister makes a designation which triggers a board designation of essential. So the strike has already commenced. It may be that at the beginning of the strike it was not deemed to be essential, but given the fact that it's gone on for so long, for example, it may then be deemed to be essential. So that section is there to capture this kind of situation. If we were to remove that section, we would have to make the determination at the beginning of every dispute, which isn't practical, or we would not have the ability to deal with a strike that had gone on for some time.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's explanation, and I understand that part of it. But under (7) it seems to me that once a designation by the minister and direction to the board is taken, the other time-lines fall into place and they can appoint the mediation. The mediation can take 15 days. They can report back, and it takes another 30 days. They can make a decision. At the end of the 45 days -- if you take the full extent of that -- they sit down, the essential services are declared, and then only at that point do the two parties work out the full implications of what those essential services mean -- which probably takes another week or more beyond that. So the extension of that time is still there, even though a strike has been called and even though in the middle of it the minister feels that it's essential.
Hon. M. Sihota: I agree. In those situations it is possible to have those time periods.
V. Anderson: That's part of our concern -- that it is possible. My suggestion is likely to be practical -- that this is actually what's going to happen. The bill should have been written in such a way that this was not possible. If it's an essential service, then it's essential that there be a quick time on it. If you're in a hospital and the essential service need is there, it's a factor which needs to go into place, and it can't be delayed. If you're in a school situation and there are children coming to school, it's essential, particularly since this government has moved in the direction of including in the school those people who have disabilities.
One of the factors here is health, safety and welfare, and I want to bring to the minister's attention again the definition of safety. We have to look at that definition: "The condition of being safe from undergoing or causing hurt, injury or loss." If there is a danger of hurt, injury or loss, it's not something that can wait indefinitely -- for two weeks, four weeks or six weeks. It's something that needs to be dealt with immediately, at the moment in which it takes place. As the leader of the third party has indicated, we're not sure that under this act the minister has even given himself -- though he thinks he has -- the authority to move ahead as he would like to.
As I read through the act, I think you have to take an almost preconceived idea to know that the board has freedom to move independently. The act points out that the minister may direct, but it only implies that the board may take action on its own, independent of the minister. As you read down through the sequence, if the sequence follows in order, you can see that the minister may direct the board and then the board, having received the direction of the minister, may act. As you read through it, it's questionable whether the board itself has authority, apart from the minister, to make decisions and to act. Or does the board only have authority to make a decision after the minister has directed it to do so? I'd be interested in knowing whether the board has independence and in knowing where it is stated as clearly for the board as it is for the minister. There's a difference in clarity with regard to those two authorities.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, but the board has to receive direction from the minister.
V. Anderson: The board has to receive direction from the minister. So the board does not have authority to act independently, as the minister has been trying to persuade us; it is an agent of the minister. That's what we assumed. I'm quite glad to have that clarified.
Another item, which came up from the discussion we had earlier, is that the minister commented that when there's a strike, if something is called an essential service, the service would still be less than what would normally be provided in that particular undertaking.
I'd like the minister to clarify something under subsection (8), which says: "If the board designates facilities, productions and services as essential services, the employer and the trade union shall supply, provide or maintain in full measure those facilities, productions and services and shall not restrict or limit a facility, production or service so designated." Let me give an example. If we are dealing with a section in a hospital that is designated as an essential service -- for instance, the emergency ward -- then it seems to me this says that that section shall operate in its full capacity, in the manner in which it always operates, rather than at a lower level of service. As the minister indicated, people
[ Page 4651 ]
could expect to receive less treatment during a strike. What does "full" mean, if it does not mean full and complete service?
Hon. M. Sihota: It means full and complete within the context in which they are designated, and that has been part of the legislation for some time. That's the first point.
Going back to your earlier comments, the second point is let's not lose sight of the fact that the minister can give direction here, but the board determines whether or not anything has to be designated essential.
[5:15]
J. Dalton: I'm pleased to rise and address some of the very serious issues that are missing from section 72. I don't have any quarrel with the reference to health, safety or welfare, but unfortunately that's a very limiting phrase, which is integral to this part of the bill.
As the Education critic for the opposition, my main concern is with regard to the absence of education. I think that's a rather sad statement, given some of the work stoppages and disruptions in education that we've already seen this year. I predict that we're going to see a lot more next year. It's very unfortunate that this government chooses to downgrade education, and I mean education from kindergarten through to the grave. The way this government is going, I think we're all going to be facing an early grave.
It's also significant that missing from the reference to essential services in section 72 is the previous "economic threat" -- and I guess I might suggest to this House somewhat facetiously that the only economic threat to this province is the current government.
However, in particular, I want to address the committee on the significant absence of a reference to education in this bill. Let me state that the president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation is on record as saying that, in his opinion, education is not essential. I don't know whether Mr. Worley -- and I have a letter in front of me that he has published in the Vancouver Sun -- is speaking officially on behalf of the entire 40,000-member BCTF, but he is certainly speaking in his capacity as the president of that association. The point that Mr. Worley is making in his letter is that he doesn't feel that education is a threat to the life or health of the people who may be directly affected by a work stoppage in the education sector. However, I might point out to this House that this province should be more concerned with the general public interest, not whether there may be some threat to the life or health of the people directly affected. I think that is such a limiting reference that it goes without saying that we are certainly going to be in a very unfortunate position if and when work stoppages occur, particularly in the public sector education field.
Hon. M. Sihota: Point of order. The debate on the principle of this section has already been held during second reading. We are into the narrower discussion at committee stage. My problem is that if the hon. member raises the principles, I'm obliged to respond, and I want to show more respect to the rules of the House than that. So hon. Chair, if you don't mind, I would prefer that the hon. member keep his comments within the context of the debate that we're having right now.
The Chair: I think your point is well taken, hon. minister. I was hesitating to interrupt the member, assuming that he would be relating his remarks to the section, but I'm not sure if he was aware of the Chair's ruling with respect to the previous amendments to the section. Would the member please continue, and try to keep his remarks relevant to the section before us.
J. Dalton: I can assure the House that I was simply setting the table and trying to extract -- and I will be asking some pointed questions of the minister -- some relevant information on the issue that I've already remarked upon: the significant absence of education in essential service designation.
Let me put a question to the minister. Perhaps this is more speculation than a direct question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Would it be true that because of some direct or other influence of self-interest groups -- particularly in the field of education -- this government has chosen to delete education in the reference to essential services? Quite frankly, I think there is some strong suggestion -- and it's not just in this field but in other factors affecting education -- that the government has listened to the interests of only one of the parties in any potential labour dispute that could affect the public education system.
So if the minister would care to comment on that reference that I just made as to whether there is any perceived interference or otherwise.... This significant amendment in the Labour Relations Code, as it will be called, is obviously of interest to every one of us, and I might suggest to the minister that it's of particular interest to him as the parent of school-age children. What's happened to education?
Hon. M. Sihota: What's happened to education is totally irrelevant in terms of this section, hon. Chair. But let me say this: in terms of whether this is due to any pressure from the BCTF or any other educational association, union or the like, the answer to the question is no.
J. Dalton: I certainly appreciate that, even though the answer was quite brief, we did get an answer.
Let's look down the line. We have some very serious situations -- potential work stoppages -- in education that are looming on the horizon. I'm referring to the fact that in seven school districts -- including the largest in this province, Vancouver -- strike notices have already been given. The teachers are highly unlikely to walk out before the end of this week, because the Christmas break is going to occur. But there is no question that there is a very strong likelihood that work stoppages in the public school sector will occur as early as January.
I would like the minister to tell the House, if a very strong likelihood comes to be, if he is prepared to take the initiative -- which is provided in section 72, if he cares to exercise it -- and declare that education, even though it's missing from the reference in the first clause
[ Page 4652 ]
of section 72.... Would he be prepared to take the initiative and ensure that our public school system is not affected by work stoppages?
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I'm going to serve the opposition notice here. I'm not going to answer hypothetical questions; I've already said that. The hon. member should know that if we were to deal in a hysterical way with every strike vote that's taken in British Columbia and think about the worst possible situation that may arise from that strike vote, we would require innumerable resources to deal with every issue. Ninety-five percent of the strike votes that are taken in British Columbia do not result in job action.
J. Dalton: I can appreciate the minister not wishing to comment on hypothetical situations. But if this government and this minister are not prepared to plan for very serious contingency situations that are almost certainly going to develop in some areas of our public sector, whether it be education, transportation or otherwise, I think the question has to be asked: what is this government prepared to do when a situation does develop? I think the people of British Columbia are entitled, through the discussion and debate in this House in committee stage, to know the likelihood of this government acting in a very serious situation.
Let me give a more concrete example that may be of assistance to the minister. The Langara work stoppage lasted for three and a half weeks. We're not dealing in hypothetics. The Langara situation almost resulted not only in the loss of a term for 6,000-plus students, but for many of them who are on career programs it could have been the loss of an entire year. I say that because career programs cannot just start and stop when they might please; there's a building process. With regard to the Langara situation, of course, we know the government failed to act. Let me just very quickly rehash what did happen with the Langara situation. First, it was quite predictable that the strike would occur and that there would be a work stoppage at Langara. This was not just a recent predictability; it went back into the spring, when I, at the time of the estimates for Advanced Education, advised the Minister of Advanced Education that he had a serious problem looming. Obviously nothing was done.
D. Streifel: Point of order. Standing order 61, hon. Chair, requires strict relevancy in committee debate. The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi is totally irrelevant to this House.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair has indicated to the hon. member on another occasion that he should keep in mind that we are in committee, that we have had second reading of Bill 84, and that the standing orders require that debate be strictly relevant. With that in mind, I would ask the hon. member to please continue.
J. Dalton: The first point with which I would like to go on record is that I can assure this House that I am not the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.
The Chair: Did the Chair call you by the wrong...?
J. Dalton: No, the member for Mission-Kent did, hon. Chair. I'm sorry -- I'm not casting any criticism your way.
The minister responded to a previous question of mine that he won't deal in hypothetical questions. I'm giving an actual, concrete example that occurred, and as I say, almost produced the loss of an entire school year for many students. I would also like to make one observation, and then I'll allow the minister to comment, if he cares to. With regard to the Langara stoppage, three weeks into it the management of the Langara campus -- in fact, the Vancouver Community College management -- and the faculty came to Victoria with a tentative package that they had negotiated. The Minister of Finance rejected it outright. Two days later, happily, the strike was resolved. I have to wonder what happened in the two-day interval.
The point I want to put to the minister is: why did this government not act to prevent what was so close to being the destruction of an entire academic year for 6,000 students? If the government wasn't prepared to act on that one, what is the government telling the province? They are saying that they won't act on any education dispute; they will allow the self-interest of the BCTF, for example, or the interests of only the unions and management involved, forgetting that there is a paramount public interest -- that is, not just of the students of this province but of all the people of this province.... I wonder if the minister would care to comment, not on hypothetical questions but on an actual situation that occurred. Government inaction produced the very unfortunate circumstances that that college faced.
C. Serwa: I rise to speak on section 72, essential services. I note a lot of noise from the cheap seats out to my left; nevertheless, I am going to proceed.
D. Streifel: Point of order. I hope the hon. member for Okanagan West didn't mean to suggest that these seats are worth any less than his seat.
[5:30]
The Chair: That's not a valid point of order, hon. member. The hon. member for Cariboo North rises on a point of order?
F. Garden: This is a very serious debate, hon. Chair, and we've got to keep the decorum in the House. I don't think there's any hon. member in this House who is cheap in any way, shape or form.
C. Serwa: I want to perhaps emphasize, for your benefit, hon. Chair, that the "cheap" that I was mentioning was not spelled "c-h-e-a-p"; it was "c-h-e-e-p," like in little chickens. I certainly wouldn't impugn the quality of the hon. member sitting on my left.
Section 72 specifically relates to essential services. Essential services appear to have some relevancy and importance, in my mind, in that they are in fact
[ Page 4653 ]
essential. So what do we see in this particular section? I'm going to ask the minister to respond to this. If the parties deem that the service may in fact be essential, they petition for a mediator. That may take a day or two, or whatever it takes. The mediator is required to report to the board within 15 days. Then the board is instructed that they can take no more than 30 days. So you have probably 45 to 50 days to determine if a service is essential. That's sheer and absolute nonsense. If this section is to carry any weight whatsoever, there must be some rational, sensible, logical method of determining what is essential in a shorter period, rather than taking a month and a half to two months to determine if in fact a service is essential. I assure you that under this section there is absolutely no service in the province that could possibly qualify as essential if it takes something like 45 to 50 days to determine so. Perhaps the minister can give me the logic or the rationale for this inordinate length of time for determining if a service is in fact essential.
Hon. M. Sihota: Under Bill 19 -- the bill you obviously voted for -- there was no time period. The suggestion was made that we had to put in a time period, because things started to drag on under the previous legislation.
But that's not the point. The point is this. I responded earlier to this issue, but not to your party, so that's why I'm going to do it again. Let's not forget that if a minister makes a direction under subsection (2) -- and logically you do it in the health care field, in any event -- the designation must be made by the board. Let me just read subsection (6): "If the minister makes a direction under subsection (2) before a strike or lockout has commenced, the parties shall not strike or lock out until the designation of essential services is made by the board."
That's a significant improvement over Bill 19. It means that you can't go on strike until you do it, so your concern about the time really is an ancillary situation. You may ask, with respect to subsection (7), what happens if that happens, and I've already answered that question as well. Subsection (7) is there in a situation where a strike begins and is originally not deemed to be essential. If it goes on for such a long time that it has those qualities to it, and the board makes a designation, then it can make a determination under subsection (7).
So you're quite right. In theory you could go on for 45 days, but in practice you can't go on strike until the designation is made.
C. Serwa: The information under subsection (7) indicates that the parties may continue the strike or lockout subject to any designation of essential services. So, under scenario (6), if that occurred.... It is most unlikely that the minister would make a ruling prior to a strike because it's not known unless there's the utilization of the 72-hour strike notice, that the minister can, in fact, make that designation. But it seems to me that subsection (6) is most unlikely, and subsection (6) indicates that the strike or lockout can in fact go on. So we're caught in the scenario of the.... If I'm reading it correctly, that's what it indicates to me.
Hon. M. Sihota: I appreciate that your Labour critic isn't here and that it's tough sometimes to pick up on subtle nuances when you're not familiar with all this stuff, but let's not forget that either party can apply. In all likelihood an employer will apply earlier, and that's all.... It's also recognized that the minister can make a designation. I anticipate that well in excess of 90 percent of the cases will fall under subsection (6).
H. De Jong: I have just a couple of questions. I think, from previous discussions we've had on the bill, that the implications of other sections of this bill will have a definite impact on the section we're dealing with right now. Because of the other implications in the bill and the potential unionization that could happen due to this bill, what kind of board can we expect? I think that labour relations boards have normally been made up of people who were fairly well acquainted with labour law, but that's where it basically ended. Can we expect a board that can look after the situations that will undoubtedly come about because of the changes in the total bill? As I understand it, the public process was held prior to any indication of what might be in Bill 84. There were suggestions brought forward by whomever, and I'm not so sure that there was a strong suggestion to change this particular section. If the people who made submissions to the ministry during that process had known all the ramifications and changes that would be taking place, I'm not so sure they would have felt comfortable with what is normally considered to be a labour board.
Hon. M. Sihota: I have a number of comments. First of all, this section was drafted with a lot of input from a lot of parties. One of the parties that placed a lot of emphasis on this section, for example, was the employer community in the hospital sector. I think that most in that sector would agree that this is an improvement over the previous legislation.
With regard the board, I agree with you. If the board is biased one way, then it clearly creates a lack of confidence in the operations of the board. That is not to say we won't be criticized for some of the changes we make to the board, but it is to say that we've been very sensitive to the fact that we want a very neutral and impartial board to govern these matters, so that it enjoys the confidence of the parties it serves.
In that regard, let me remind you that the changes we've made to the board so far have been very balanced. We've brought in people from management and from unions, and they have been generally well received. I can't think of any real criticism that we've received for the changes we've made. Let me also say that we've kept many of the people appointed by the previous administration on the board to make sure that that sense of balance remains.
Finally, let me also remind you that it was the previous administration that terminated most of the people, if not all.... Well, it terminated all of the people they had inherited, and then offered jobs back to some of them after they brought in Bill 19. We have consciously chosen not to do that.
[ Page 4654 ]
So I agree with your concern, and we've tried to accommodate that as much as we can with respect to the composition of the board.
H. De Jong: Just a final question, Mr. Chairman. The minister knows full well which part of the industry that I want to represent. As I said last week in dealing with the other sections, there's a lot of uncertainty in the agriculture industry about what Bill 84 will do. This section is again one of the critical sections for that industry. Perhaps the minister can't give me the assurance -- although I hope that in broad terms he can -- that someone on that board is familiar with the agriculture sector as part of British Columbia's economy.
Hon. M. Sihota: It's always open to any MLA to put forward nominations for these kinds of positions. I would invite the hon. member to do so. I just asked my deputy if we have someone from the agriculture field on the board; we don't. So I accept the validity of your point, and I thank you for it. It's a point well made.
L. Stephens: Subsection (9) states: "A designation made under this section may be amended, varied or revoked and another made in its place...." Could the minister tell me what would have to happen for that to happen?
Hon. M. Sihota: That section has been in there for quite some time. It just gives powers to the board to make any amendments that may be necessary in order to better deal with an issue that may not have been adequately attended to.
L. Stephens: Would that be in the actual designation of an essential service or in the process of it?
Hon. M. Sihota: It would be in the actual designation.
L. Stephens: It says: "...on application..." it can "...decline to file its order in a Supreme Court." On application by whom?
Hon. M. Sihota: On application by either of the parties.
L. Stephens: By the minister as well?
Hon. M. Sihota: No. The minister is not a party and doesn't make designations.
J. Dalton: I'd like to come back for a moment to my favourite topic: education. I would like to think it's everybody's favourite topic, but I sometimes wonder. The B.C. School Trustees' Association is on record as having two specific concerns about this bill. One of them we've already canvassed, so we're not going to go back over old territory. That was the replacement workers argument. We canvassed that at length in second reading as well.
The other concern that the BCSTA is dealing with is the designation, or lack thereof, of essential services with regard to education. I quote from a release of the BCSTA dated November 7: "A serious safety problem could occur at schools if there's a work stoppage." I would like the minister to comment, if he cares, as to whether he would be prepared to intercede if a safety problem did occur through work stoppages. I've already alluded today to the strong possibility of stoppages, given that seven districts have served strike notices so far.
Hon. M. Sihota: They don't need me to intercede, now that either party can make an application to the Labour Relations Board for a designation.
J. Dalton: I appreciate the minister's comment that either party to the dispute can apply to the chair of the board for investigation. However, I would point out to the minister that he can intercede on his own initiative, if he cares to exercise it. Obviously he doesn't care to respond as to whether he would be prepared to do so. In fact, earlier today in the House the minister stated that he would not prejudge decisions of the Labour Relations Board as to essential services in education issues if they came before the board. If the minister is not prepared to intercede, if need be, I'm in a quandary. We have no idea how the board might act on a very serious safety issue. We know as a fact that other than the people who happen to be running the school at the time of a work stoppage, which in many cases would be the principal only, no one else can intercede. I would also point out to the committee that the public interest is surely of more paramount importance than whether either party to a dispute could intercede. Schoolchildren cannot apply to the Labour Relations Board or the minister for a ruling; the parents cannot apply; the general public can't apply. I think we've got ourselves into a real quandary here. We seem to be wandering into a very deep, dark tunnel, and there doesn't seem to be any exit from it.
[5:45]
I would also comment that any initiative, whether it be through either party asking for the chair's interference or whether the minister cares to exercise his own initiative, takes time. I refer back to the BCSTA's serious concern about safety factors in the public schools. Are we going to sit back and say: "Oh well, we'll let the whole process take its course. The minister might intercede. It may be that either party to the dispute, which would be a local teachers' association or the school district affected, might choose to intercede"? In the meantime parents have no idea if the safety of their children is at risk. The public interest is abandoned in this entire process. In fact, perhaps another amendment to this clause might even be warranted. What has happened to the public interest? It seems to have been totally abandoned.
However, I would like the minister to comment -- if he cares to -- on this time lag, this situation where we're going to get into a hiatus. A safety factor comes up and everybody is saying: "Well, let someone else attend to it." Perhaps nobody will attend to it.
[ Page 4655 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: I've listened with some interest for the last little while as we've canvassed a number of issues that relate to section 72. I do believe that the comments made by my colleague immediately preceding me are ones that warrant some investigation.
The minister has advised the House that under Bill 84 either of the two parties involved in a dispute can make a representation before the board to ask that certain levels of essential services be designated under the provisions of health, safety or welfare. Perhaps the minister can advise us, given the debate that has taken place not just on this section but on other sections, with regard to situations that have been brought to our attention concerning school districts and the safety of students -- i.e., supervision during a walkout or ensuring that the students get home safely in the event of sudden or unanticipated job action. Would it be the minister's feeling that under this bill those school boards presently in situations where strike votes have been taken could, if they wish, cover some of those provisions we have mentioned -- which the minister has said he is sympathetic to -- and make representation to the board to ensure that those essential services relating to supervision and ensuring that the children get home safely are provided?
Hon. M. Sihota: If they wish, they have rights within this legislation, hon. member, that you're well aware of.
G. Farrell-Collins: I didn't understand what it was that the minister said. I couldn't understand the words he was saying. Sorry.
Hon. M. Sihota: They could seek to make that application if they wish.
G. Farrell-Collins: I assume, then, given the debate that's taken place on a number of sections -- certainly section 68, which we went at for some length -- with regard to levels of service in the event of a strike, as far as safety and supervision of students went, in the minister's mind this is the appropriate section that should be used to deal with those concerns which we all expressed, and this is the provision that should be acted upon in order to ensure that safety exists.
Hon. M. Sihota: Your assumptions are invalid.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, perhaps the minister can give us some guidance on where in this bill those types of safety considerations are addressed. Or are they addressed at all in this bill?
I'm becoming increasingly frustrated, and I imagine members of the public are becoming more and more frustrated as we deal with this....
Interjection.
The Chair: Order, hon. members. Would the member please continue.
G. Farrell-Collins: At least the member for Mission-Kent engages in the debate once in a while and contributes. The rest of the backbenchers just sit there and mumble under their breath.
The Chair: Order, hon. member.
Interjections.
The Chair: My caution applies to the hon. member who has his place as well as to those members who are speaking from their seats. Does the hon. member wish to continue?
G. Farrell-Collins: It is with growing frustration that....
Some Hon. Members: Whine, whine, whine.
The Chair: Hon. members, it's difficult for the Chair to ignore the obvious tauntings that are taking place in the committee. In light of the overall circumstances, I think it would be helpful if members would restrain themselves. Let's attempt to debate the matter before us, which is section 72 of the Labour Relations Code. The hon. member wishes to continue.
G. Farrell-Collins: The concern that we are addressing under this section, which we have addressed under section 6 and under section 68, once again comes to the fore. We were advised throughout the debate on those other sections that provisions for the safety and security of students in the schools, in the event of sudden or unforeseen work stoppages where no other alternative plans could be made in advance, would be dealt with under section 72. In fact, we have the minister on record in Hansard as saying numerous times: "You can address that in section 72. Section 72 will address that." I ask the minister now to answer some questions with regard to that. What are the parameters of those provisions which he has provided for in section 72? Is this the section or is this not the section where those types of concerns can be raised before the Labour Relations Board, where school districts and professionals in the education sector can bring representation before the Labour Relations Board to ensure that those unforeseen problems which we've discussed at length in this House can be addressed? Is it this section where they should be making representation before the Labour Relations Board if they want those concerns addressed?
The minister is asleep or not paying attention or doesn't care about the students in this province.
The Chair: Order, hon. member!
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, it's extremely distressing....
The Chair: Just a moment, hon. member. The member knows that standing orders are quite explicit on debate in committee. They allow each member to express his concerns to the minister, provided that they
[ Page 4656 ]
are strictly relevant and respect the rule of originality. If you're going to be repetitive, then the Chair will at some point have to intervene and ask the member to move to another point. You can ask he questions of the minister, but under our standing orders the minister is not required to answer each question. So the member should keep that in mind.
G. Farrell-Collins: I thank you for your guidance.
I'm asking the questions which I'm asking in a number of ways, trying to hopefully word them in such a fashion as will elicit a response from the minister, given his guarantees and his promises throughout this debate that this is the section where these concerns should be addressed. And I still wait on the minister for a response. I understand it's his prerogative within the standing rules of this House to refuse to answer. But I would state to the minister that, with his responsibility to the general public and the way governance should be done in this province, he has a higher duty to answer questions beyond the rules of this House.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, given the lateness of the hour, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: I move that the House at its rising do stand recessed for five minutes.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:56 p.m.
The House resumed at 6:06 p.m.
Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 84.
LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 84; E. Barnes in the chair.
On section 72.
C. Serwa: A short time ago the minister volunteered the information that he felt, under essential services in section 72(6), that approximately 90 percent of the issues would fall under subsection (6), which is very important. I'm pleased to hear that.
In order for the minister to come up with that type of assessment and determination, the minister must have some guidelines in place at the present time. What is interesting to me is whether those guidelines include certain services such as education or such as B.C. ferries to and from Vancouver Island. Perhaps the minister could elaborate on how he made the determination that approximately 90 percent would fall under subsection (6).
Hon. M. Sihota: In most cases the designation process would commence early, and that has been the practice in British Columbia. It commences very early in an application by the party, so a minister seldom has to trigger the process. The parties simply do it. For example, an employer in the health care field is not going to wait until strike notice has been served to begin the process of designation. They're going to ask for it as early as possible.
C. Serwa: Not to belabour the point, but again, in subsection (6) it says: "If the minister makes a direction under subsection (2)..." -- not the parties. It's the minister in this particular case making that direction, and that's the area that concerns me. If the minister makes the direction, it's not one of the parties. That's the area that's not clear to me.
Hon. M. Sihota: The minister has a lot of latitude as to when they want to make it. Obviously, as a minister, you'd want to do it early enough to prevent a triggering of subsection (7); you'd want to do it in compliance with subsection (6).
C. Serwa: For clarity, then, if one of the parties makes a representation to the minister prior to a strike, is my understanding correct that the minister, who has confirmed that approximately 90 percent of the areas of concern would fall under subsection (6), would designate that, and a strike or lockout could not occur? If that is correct, then it seems evident to me that the minister must have some parameters established now in order to come forward with his estimate of 90 percent falling under subsection (6).
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm basing that on past practice and the types of cases that have come before us in the past.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, with your indulgence, I just have to shuffle some papers around here. I wanted to get back to the minister.... Earlier today we were canvassing some points on the bill, and I want to get back to the designation process. I know that the member for Vancouver-Langara quoted from one dictionary with regard to some of the definitions of what the minister will be dealing with in order to decide to approach or direct the board for designation. In second reading -- this is where the paper-shuffling comes in -- we have the minister on record.... I'd like to share this with the minister to refresh his memory.
When we were talking about section 6 and the possibility of students being trapped behind a picket line, the minister said that that was covered in section 72 under essential services. The minister said:
[ Page 4657 ]
"In the event of a police, firefighters' or health workers' strike, there's a process of designation. The process of designation ensures that basic services are provided to guarantee that there is no adverse risk to the health and well-being of the citizens of British Columbia. Accordingly, the harm to which this hon. member refers" -- and again, that was with regard to students behind the picket line -- "is prevented through that designation process. That's the way the issue is dealt with. Those provisions are in this legislation in sections 72 and 73. They afford appropriate protection to children, adults or anyone else who may feel threatened. In a situation where the public is in some way at risk, they are protected through the essential service designation...."
Hon. Chair, I'd like to tell the minister, because at that point we were talking about a picket line, that what we find actually is that the provision with regard to students behind the picket line is very time-sensitive. The processes that are outlined in (6) do not allow for a time-sensitive decision on the part of the minister. In fact, I have a hard time admitting this, but I'm standing up and asking the minister about his ability to intervene in the event of labour unrest causing undue stress or harm to individuals. Obviously this opposition has not been in the practice of encouraging these ministers to intervene in the past. However, we do allow that, in the event of something like students behind the picket line, it becomes extremely important for the minister to be able to make a judgment with regard to health and safety and, as per the section 6 debate -- I'm sorry, I have been saying second reading; this was in committee stage of section 6 -- I'm not sure that this section addresses what the minister said was addressed when we were in section 6. Secondly, how does the minister provide for something more time-sensitive than sending it to a board? As the member for West Vancouver-Capilano said earlier, the minister says that when there's an illegal strike, the minister and the board can take action very quickly. But when it's a legal situation, there's such a long process involved that actually.... The minister is shaking his head, so I'll just wait for his response.
Hon. M. Sihota: One, none of my comments should be construed as prejudging whether or not education is covered by this section. The second point is that you have missed my comments on subsection (6). If you reflect on them, you will see how the situation you refer to is attended to.
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
J. Tyabji: If I correctly heard the minister, I think he mumbled something about me misunderstanding what he'd said on section 6. If that's the truth, I would like a clarification as to what he said. When we were on the debate of section 6, he said: "When we get to section 72, the bill deals with that." Does the minister remember saying that? A little nod? Not seeing him nod, I'll have to remind him again that what happened at that point was....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: You did nod -- okay.
Since the minister remembers the debate on section 6 when the opposition introduced an amendment that said "except in the case where the safety of the public is at risk," the very specific example we gave in that case had to do with education. I know that the minister just finished saying that education isn't being addressed in this part of the bill, but what is supposed to be addressed in the essential services part is safety. When we tried to introduce an amendment on safety under section 6, the minister said: "Call me under section 72." So we're calling. Can the minister please help the opposition out as far as giving some direction on the specific example of students behind the picket line or in the case where individual safety is at risk to the extent that it was when we were in debate on section 6?
[6:15]
Hon. M. Sihota: In the past few days the Liberal opposition has needed so much help that not even I could provide them with the appropriate level of assistance.
With regard to the issue flagged by the hon. member, I would simply say, first of all, that I have already answered the questions. I'm putting the opposition on notice that I will not, for a second time, be answering questions that I've already answered. Secondly, you're correct: the issue deals with safety. Thirdly, whether or not education is covered is a determination the board will make. Fourth, how safety will be defined is a matter that is under the board's jurisdiction and at its discretion.
G. Farrell-Collins: Contrary to what the minister says, he hasn't answered anything about this section that's of any substance. He certainly hasn't fulfilled the promises that he gave us under sections 6 and 68 to deal with these issues under section 72.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: We hear these comments coming from the NDP back benches. They don't realize that these are concerns and questions that parents have brought to us, and they'd like answers to them. You can make derogatory comments....
Interjection.
The Chair: Order! I would remind all members that the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove has the floor, and I would ask him to address his comments through the Chair.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Chair. I intend to do so, and I will continue to do so. However, much as the minister warned the opposition, I suppose, in the same vein, I would warn the government that when they're making these derogatory comments about the opposition, they should be advised that these are questions and concerns that are brought forth by the public. The minister can choose to get upset when we ask him questions, but he should remember where
[ Page 4658 ]
these questions really come from and respond accordingly, with the respect that I hope he, as a minister of the Crown, would accord the public.
We asked the minister a number of questions in section 6; we asked the minister a number of questions in section 68; and each time, as my colleague has advised us, the minister put that off and said: "Well, I'll be glad to answer that question when we come to section 72. Section 72 is where those questions should be raised, and therefore bring them up in section 72." He said that ten or 15 times.
F. Garden: He's answered them.
G. Farrell-Collins: Another henchman on the back bench here says that the minister's answered them. Well, I would ask him to read Hansard, because, in fact, the minister hasn't. To quote the minister himself: "I haven't answered anything." That's a quote from the minister himself. If that's what the minister says, then you're disagreeing with the minister.
The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I understand your direction and I'll stick with it.
There are questions and concerns with section 72 as it relates to levels of essential services, and we've certainly dealt with them. The ones that deal with students in schools are ones that I know are pertinent, because I was asked those very questions this morning in my own constituency by members of the Langley School Board. I know that these concerns have not been addressed in the debate so far. I know that these concerns are still coming up, because the school board hears it from parents, and they pass it on to me. I come in here and ask these questions of the minister. All I ask is that the minister give me an answer, so I can go back to the school board and they can go back to their parents to provide those answers. I think it's very unfortunate that we haven't had answers to those questions, and to quote the minister: "I haven't given an answer to anything."
We dealt with schools, but there are other provisions. The Leader of the Opposition has asked about ferries and what level of essential services there should be, or if there should be. How does that relate under the provision we have with the current legislation for levels of essential services to be maintained due to an economic threat to the province? Again, we had the minister not responding to those questions with any substance. Again, there are literally tens of thousands of people who live in the Victoria area, Saanich, the Gulf Islands, up the coast on both the Sunshine Coast and Vancouver Island, all the way up to the Queen Charlottes, who rely on the ferry services daily. They have these questions; they have these concerns. When the minister shrugs off those questions as though they are coming from an opposition that he has some problem with when these questions come up, he should keep in mind that they come from elsewhere. They come from the general public, and he may have a higher duty to respond to the public beyond what the rules of this House are.
Some comments were brought forward by the Health critic with relation to essential services and the level of service that exists. A very short debate took place, but I think it was an interesting and enlightening one, as it showed the perspective that the minister is coming from. The Health critic brought up numerous cases of people who felt that during the last labour dispute in the hospital system in British Columbia, the level of care was not sufficient. They felt the level of essential services should be higher.
I understand that under this legislation it's certainly not in the minister's jurisdiction or his intent to insert himself into those disputes and set the levels of essential services, but he must be aware that he has a responsibility to the general public as the Minister of Labour to do just that if the levels of essential service are not sufficient. If the level of essential services is not sufficient in the minds of the public or the minds of the practitioners, the physicians, those protecting the patients in this province, then it's incumbent upon the minister to ensure, through legislation or some other means, that those levels of essential service take the form that they must in order to ensure a decent level of service, a level of service that is bought into not just by the administrator of a hospital and the union at hand but by the patients, who also have a say in that, as do the physicians. I think that is critical also.
So we have the minister stand up and try to shrug these questions off and say he's not going to answer any more questions or he's not going to answer any questions in this section, period. I think he's doing a great disservice to the people of this province, certainly to the 40 percent who elected his government, but also to the 60 percent of this province who are concerned.... The general public wants some answers to these questions. They are concerned.
I know the rule book says the minister doesn't have to answer questions if he doesn't want to, but he should remember who is really asking these questions. It's the general public who wants to know. Those are the people whom the minister has to respond to, and those are the people he should show some respect to.
J. Tyabji: In a previous part of the bill the member for Delta South brought up the situation that could arise if you had a nanny who had been hired in the private sector. At that time the minister referred us to section 72 with regard to essential services, because the question I had brought forward at that time was: would this minister ever consider classification of essential services for the private sector, and if so, which parts of the private sector would be eligible for essential services classification? I'd like to put that question to the minister again.
Hon. M. Sihota: The point that's lost here on the opposition is the fact that anybody can make an application to seek a designation under section 72.
[ Page 4659 ]
K. Jones: Can we have the mike turned up or something? It's almost impossible to hear the minister.
The Chair: The member for Okanagan East has the floor, and I would remind the hon. member to direct questions to that member, unless he wants to enter debate.
J. Tyabji: If I could perhaps put into words in an official way the request from the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, we're having some difficulty hearing the minister, and I refer back to my remarks about mumbling. Perhaps the minister could be a little more forthright, because I don't know that in the past he's had difficulty in projecting his voice.
The Chair: The Chair will get the volume turned up.
Hon. M. Sihota: The member knows full well that any party, private sector or public sector, can make an application under section 72.
J. Tyabji: That brings me back to 72(2)(b), which we have canvassed before, and I hope the minister does not shrug this off as a hypothetical situation, because it's a very real situation.
In the private sector, in the event that a family has a full-time nanny because, let's say, both parents are working -- however it works.... This is actually the example from the member for Delta South. But a number of people would be facing this situation. Out of interest, if the minister can walk us through this, if the nanny is a bargaining unit of one....
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: I'm having a little difficulty, hon. Chair.
The Chair: Order, order. The hon. member continues.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, because the member for Delta South isn't here to put the case before the House, I will do it on his behalf, and hopefully the back bench can restrain themselves long enough for me to put the point across.
As the minister is aware, the member for Delta South had a call from a constituent who had a nanny. That person was concerned because in the definitions section of the bill a bargaining unit can be defined as one person. That one person could join a union and take job action, and in the event of a family member deciding to fill in, that would be technically designated as replacement work. Then this minister stood up in the House and told us that yes, a family member who filled in for a nanny would be considered a replacement worker. If the parents chose to take the children to a relative's house, that house would be considered an allied site, and the nanny could then, with or without reinforcements on the picket line, set up a picket line outside the relative's house because it's an allied site. Because this minister has the ability under subsection (2)(b) to have the initiative to....
Hon. Chair, considering the interruptions from the back bench, I'd like to point out to the House that we do not have a quorum.
The Chair: The Opposition House Leader continues.
J. Tyabji: I find it interesting that the back bench feels that what we're canvassing right now is not worthwhile when the majority of British Columbians have to face the fact that often both parents have to work. They end up in a situation where they have a nanny or a day care. I was putting forward to the minister that under section 72(2)(b), the minister has the discretionary ability to direct something to the board under his own initiative. Given the scenario where a family isn't able to find someone to take care of their children -- whether it's a day care or a nanny in the private sector -- would that be a significant enough threat to the health, safety or welfare of residents that he would direct the board to look into it as an essential service?
[6:30]
I see that the minister has indicated no; he does not consider any kind of child care to be an essential service. I find that interesting, considering that he is a parent of young children.
The next thing I'd like to....
D. Lovick: That is equivocation. That is really dishonest stuff.
J. Tyabji: I hear the comment that this is a dishonest representation, but the minister is saying that he does not believe this to be an essential service.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please.
J. Tyabji: If the minister could limit his conversation long enough, he might understand that he is now on record as believing that day care and nanny services are not essential services. Is the minister comfortable with that?
Okay, he's comfortable with that.
The next thing I'd like to do is talk about some of the....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, we definitely will attest that when I asked the minister if he believed that these were essential services, he shook his head no.
F. Garden: On a point of order, the previous Chairman explained to this caucus the role of the minister in answering questions. I've now heard twice that the Opposition House Leader has assumed certain answers. I've been watching the debate quite closely. She can put on the record what she likes, but she can
[ Page 4660 ]
not assume what goes on the record by another member. I think you should call her to order for that.
J. Tyabji: I encourage the members to get involved in the debate if they choose to. Of course, it's the minister's prerogative, if he feels he is being misrepresented, to stand up in the House and say so.
Hon. Chair, with regard to some of the mechanics of section 72, we've got a lot of involvement of the Labour Relations Board, the mediation division, an associate chair and a mediator who could be appointed. I know that we'll get to this to some extent during estimates, but I'm wondering when we will get some indication from the minister as to the cost of all these things in the event of each of these mechanical things being brought to bear. Has there been an economic impact study, first of all? Has there been any costing out of the mediation division, and when will we see it before the House?
N. Lortie: Point of order. I would like to ask the minister whether it would be possible, please, for him to designate just that one nanny of the hon. member for Okanagan East an essential service so that we could get on with some important debate, instead of wasting the taxpayers' money and this House's time and the patience of the back bench. I think that would solve the whole problem.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order!
G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, despite the humour of the member's intervention, I believe he is no longer relevant whatsoever to the debate.
D. Lovick: Careful. If we start using that rule, you guys are in trouble.
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: I'll wait for the dinosaurs to stop roaring in the back bench.
I believe the minister was going to provide us with some answers as to the costs. I find it very interesting that the only debate we're hearing from the back bench has to do with the cost of keeping the House open. We're doing the government's business here, and I'm putting these questions to the minister. Is there an economic impact study? When will we see it before the House? How much are we expected to pay for these things?
Hon. M. Sihota: The only reason we're running up the cost of having a meeting here today is because of the situation involving the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.
J. Tyabji: Point of order. I think it is unfortunate if we try to use the House for irrelevant types of politicking and shenanigans. Hon. Chair, I asked a very simple question. The minister should be speaking only to section 72.
The Chair: Before I recognize the next speaker, I would like to remind the House that we are on section 72. It is the season of good will, and I ask that all comments be kept relevant to section 72.
Hon. M. Sihota: We don't anticipate any additional costs.
J. Tyabji: I'm not sure I heard the minister. Did he say he does not anticipate any extra costs?
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: We can't hear you. Hon. Chair, it's very difficult to hear the minister's short responses.
The minister's saying he doesn't expect any more cost. It seems that the minister may be able to direct the board. Now that we've got the board to designate essential services, there will be a lot more activity. If there are no extra costs involved, then I'd like to canvass 72(1) for the purposes of the debate. With regard to 72(1), what does the minister think about third parties who are not party to the dispute ending up being victimized because one of the two sides is not coming to terms or fixing the labour unrest? When we're talking about the health, safety or welfare of the residents, does the minister feel that it is fair to have any threats to an innocent third party?
I don't believe that we've asked this question before. I am trying to determine.... Right now the bill reads:
"If a dispute arises after collective bargaining has commenced, either of the parties to the dispute may apply to the chair to investigate or the chair on his or her own motion may investigate whether or not the dispute poses a threat to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia and report the results of the investigation to the minister."
If the dispute poses a threat to an innocent third party or directly impacts on a third party, regardless of the health, safety or welfare of the residents as a collective, does the minister feel that that would be an adequate provision for the minister directing the board to try to look at possible essential services designation?
Seeing that the minister is unwilling to address the issue of an innocent third party, I would like to move an amendment to section 72(1) so that it would now read:
"If a dispute arises after collective bargaining has commenced, either of the parties to the dispute may apply to the chair to investigate or the chair on his or her own motion may investigate whether or not the dispute poses a threat to an innocent third party or the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia and report the results of the investigation to the minister."
Hon. M. Sihota: Point of order. The amendment is totally out of order. It negates the intent of the section. It ignores the fact that this section deals with designation, and the parties affected and involved in the designation process are the parties that are governed by the collective agreement -- in other words, the two parties at the table.
[ Page 4661 ]
The Chair: The Chair would ask that you continue debate while the Chair decides on a ruling.
J. Tyabji: Point of order. We brought this amendment forward because we believe there are three parties in any labour dispute. In fact, the first party....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The amendment is definitely in order.
Hon. M. Sihota: Why?
J. Tyabji: Because it does not change the intent, and because we are talking specifically about designation. If I can make the point with regard to the point of order, essential services is in the bill specifically to provide for the safety, health and welfare of the public, which is the third party. The whole point of section 72 is that the innocent third party must also be included in whether or not the designation process should come into play. That's the whole point of the amendment. It is definitely in order. We look forward to speaking to the amendment when the Chair has ruled on it.
The Chair: It is the decision of the Chair that this amendment goes far beyond the scope of this section. Therefore it is out of order.
The Opposition House Leader continues.
J. Tyabji: I find it unfortunate that the minister seems to be skating around the issue of the third parties that are involved in anything that has to do with essential services...
G. Farrell-Collins: Or the whole bill.
J. Tyabji: ...or the whole bill or these sections of the bill. As legislators we have all been elected to represent all of our constituents. It is extremely important for this minister to realize that whole point of section 72, which is the essential services provision, is to provide for the third parties. Yes, you have labour unrest. Yes, you have labour disputes. But the obligation of the government is to ensure that the legislation is in place as a safety net.
I see the minister shaking his head no.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member doesn't seem to understand that the third parties are the residents of British Columbia. The designation process that is contemplated under this act deals with the safety or welfare or health of the residents of British Columbia. It protects those third parties through the designation process. That's the point that just doesn't seem to have made itself clear through the fog in the Liberal caucus.
J. Tyabji: Personal attacks aside, which I don't believe should come into play in the House, what the minister....
An Hon. Member: Don't tell that to David Mitchell.
J. Tyabji: At least it was in chorus.
The minister seems to be avoiding the very fact that it is legislation.... The minister has an arbitrary, judgmental role to play in 72(2)(b).
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The minister is trying to say that the opposition doesn't understand. We do understand that the designation process is ultimately before the board. The minister is shaking his head. Subsection 72(2)(b) reads: "on the minister's own initiative considers that a dispute poses a threat to health, safety or welfare...the minister may direct the board to designate as essential services those...that the board considers necessary...." We know that the board makes the ruling as to whether it's essential. But my reading of 72(2)(b) -- and if I'm wrong, if the minister would care to clarify this, I would really appreciate it -- is that it means the minister has the ability to activate the board to provide the designation for essential services. Would the minister please either confirm or deny that understanding of the section?
[6:45]
The minister has confirmed that he is the one who can send things to the board for designation. In debate on previous sections in the committee stage -- I have more that I'll address in a minute -- the minister said: "When we get to 72, we'll deal with that. I understand that's important. We'll deal with it in 72." Well, here we are in section 72. Given that the minister has admitted the interpretation of 72(2)(b) is that he has the ability to refer things to the board for designation as essential services, would he agree that it is very important to weigh potential threats to innocent third parties as factors in his reference to the board for designation? Yes or no?
I heard the minister say that the section speaks for itself. If the minister believes the section speaks for itself, then what I hear the minister saying is that he is not going to allow....
Let's imagine that there's a labour dispute and an innocent third party is directly and severely impacted, and it is a threat to that innocent third party. I hear this minister saying that he does not consider that to be something he would refer to the board for designation as essential services. He would expect that someone else would have to do it. This minister is not prepared, through legislation, to be in a position.... The minister is trying to pass the buck on difficult decisions with regard to threats to innocent third parties. Would this minister confirm that that's what he's trying to do? Is he trying to remove any jurisdiction for that from his office?
If that is the case, one might ask why the Minister of Labour would not want to be in a position to rule on a threat to an innocent third party in referring it to the board for designation as essential services. Does the minister not want to end up taking some kind of political heat? That's certainly what one might say. In the event of a union being in a stalemate with an employer and an innocent third party being directly threatened by the stalemate, this minister doesn't want
[ Page 4662 ]
anyone to think he has any responsibility in sending that to the board for designation as essential services. If that's the case, then this minister should come clean with the public and tell them that he doesn't want to be personally responsible for it, because he doesn't mind it being a stalemate and having an innocent third party threatened. He just doesn't want any political repercussions for himself. If that is the minister's motivation, I think it's disgraceful. If those are his intentions, he should say to the House that that's what he's trying to do. He's trying to let somebody else be responsible for it; let the Labour Relations Board rule on it if someone else happens to refer it, but don't come to this minister, because this minister doesn't care if there's an innocent third party being threatened. This minister has not put that in the legislation, he's not speaking to it in the legislation, he says the legislation speaks for itself, and that's what I'm hearing this legislation say: this minister couldn't care less, because the most important thing....
H. Giesbrecht: On a point of order, as much as I am thoroughly enjoying this excruciatingly tedious and repetitious debate -- and no doubt the taxpayer is happy paying for it -- it is in violation of standing order 61.
The Chair: I would once again remind all members of the House to be relevant in debate, and we are on section 72.
J. Tyabji: Our amendment didn't get in. I'm still in disbelief that the minister isn't going to accept an amendment to introduce his ability to have some involvement with....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Denial and disbelief. Hon. Chair, the members over there, the little joking club in the back there, are trying to say "denial and disbelief." Either one. I can't believe that the minister doesn't want to have some responsibility when there's an innocent third party. Ultimately every legislator, including these little friends over here, are somehow responsible to all members of their riding, including the innocent third party who could be in a position of being threatened by a labour dispute. We've heard this minister not only remain silent on it but allow it to go on record that he feels that that's a perfectly acceptable way to be.
Since the minister will not set the record straight, if it needs to be set straight, and since we are of an understanding that he doesn't care about threats to innocent third parties, I will yield to the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member clearly does not understand that the section deals with designation of essential services to protect "the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia." That's what the section says. It means that it protects the interests of those innocent third parties. That's the intent of the section: to deal with essential service designations to protect people with regard to threats to the health, safety or welfare of the residents....
I can only conclude.... I hope that people are watching this at home tonight, because it behooves me to say just how pathetic, inept and inexperienced this Liberal opposition is.
J. Tyabji: I won't bother with a point of order. I hope the people are watching at home, and they can see what the minister is like.
The last point I'd like to make to the minister is that, as in previous sections of the bill, we are trying very hard to tell the minister that there is a difference between a direct pecuniary interest to a small group and the interest of the collective. This bill is only making a nebulous reference to the interests of the collective, being "the health, safety or welfare of the residents...." In the event of there being a stalemate and an innocent third party, there is no provision in the bill for that, and the minister knows that. He knows that very well.
I will now yield to the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.
K. Jones: I would like to ask the minister if he could further clarify subsection (2)(b) for us. As he has referred to previously, with regard to residents of British Columbia being the only interest that this bill will take into consideration, I'd like to ask him if there are other interests that don't include residents of British Columbia where the essential services provision would be required to be brought into play.
I'm sorry, hon. minister, I didn't hear your response. Is there some problem with giving an answer? You do have some situations...?
Interjection.
K. Jones: I sat down because the minister was giving a response, even though he wasn't recognized by the Chair.
To the minister: what would happen if there was a strike that affected the water supply to the people of Point Roberts? Would you feel that you had sufficient control within this legislation to protect the essential needs of those people for a basic water supply?
The minister doesn't seem to have an answer to that question. It's rather an important one, since the Greater Vancouver Regional District does supply water to the people of Point Roberts. Perhaps there are other situations like that within our province, where people who are not residents of British Columbia are dependent upon services. There are actually many places like this, where services are being provided to other areas -- such as into the United States and Alberta, perhaps even into the Yukon.
I don't know who is supposed to respond, but there seems to be nobody there from the government side. There is no minister or anything, Mr. Chair. Perhaps we could have someone come forward to represent the government. This is an improper way of running the Legislature -- without a person representing the government being present.
[ Page 4663 ]
The Chair: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale continues.
K. Jones: Is the Chair going to proceed without proper representation from the government? There is no one on the government side from the cabinet.
The Chair: Hon. member, we are debating section 72, not commenting on the absence or presence of members in this House. I would ask the hon. member to either take his seat or continue debate on section 72.
K. Jones: Continuing on section 72.... Now that the minister is back with us, I'm very happy to carry on.
With regard to subsection (3), hon. minister, it says that the associate chair of the mediation division may appoint one or more mediators. Why have you not used "shall" in that case? What happens if the person doesn't proceed, based on his or her judgment, to make any appointment? "May" allows them to be discretionary, and there's therefore no requirement to proceed. What happens under those circumstances, hon. minister?
G. Farrell-Collins: A few questions to the minister. I was absent for about five or ten minutes today while the leader of the third party spoke on section 72. Perhaps if he has canvassed those areas already.... The question which I have of the minister is if he could advise me.... My understanding of the former section 137.8, which dealt with essential services, is that it had a provision for a cooling-off period, and I notice that that cooling-off period is absent from section 72. Perhaps the minister could inform us of the reasoning for that.
Perhaps I can ask the question again of the minister. It is a short and simple question. If he could break himself away from the ex-Minister of Forests for 30 seconds to hear the question, maybe he could provide the House and the public of British Columbia with an answer.
Hon. Chair, I find it nearly impossible to engage in constructive debate on this bill while the minister is not in the House -- no member of the cabinet is in the House -- or he converses with his buddies. I have a very simple question for the minister, and if he would cease to be as rude as he has been and merely answer the question, then perhaps we could move on, hon. Chair.
G. Janssen: Order!
G. Farrell-Collins: I notice the government Whip is busy doing his Christmas cards, and every so often he lifts his head to yell: "Order!" I don't imagine he's contributing anything constructive to the debate.
The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I was directing to the Chair, and I'll continue to do so. Maybe the Chair can wake up the minister so I can ask him a question.
Essential services....
Interjection.
The Chair: Order! I would remind the House that we are on section 72, and that the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove has the floor. I'd also remind members, when speaking to section 72, to be relevant and to be mindful of Beauchesne's rule 481: "...a member, while speaking, must not...refer to the presence or absence of specific members."
[7:00]
G. Farrell-Collins: I notice I have the undivided attention of the minister. It was indeed a simple question. As I stated earlier, I was absent from the House for about ten or 20 minutes today in order to have dinner, and I missed some comments by the leader of the third party. Perhaps the minister can advise me if I'm covering ground that he has already covered.
I notice under section 137.8 of the act that is still in force, which deals with essential services, that under subsection (1)(a) there was a provision for a cooling-off period of 40 days. I notice that the cooling-off provision is absent from the labour code that the minister is bringing forward. Perhaps he can explain the reasoning for that.
Hon. M. Sihota: A student of labour relations would know very quickly that the section was seldom used, and that when it was used, it tended to heat up a labour dispute instead of solving it.
G. Farrell-Collins: I always find it interesting that the minister stands up and speaks with wisdom after consulting his advisers. It would be nice if he could stand up and speak with wisdom before he consults his advisers and throws derogatory comments at the opposition. Perhaps his wide-ranging intellect would be more appreciated by this side of the House if it were his own that he was speaking from.
Hon. Chair, the....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, hon. Chair, in cases....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Nanaimo should either participate in the debate or go home, because he's doing nothing but disrupting the order of this House.
The Chair: Order. Through the Chair.
G. Janssen: On a point of order, hon. Chair, you've reminded the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove on many occasions about referring to other members in the House. He doesn't seem to be taking your advice. Perhaps it would be prudent to recognize another member at this time.
The Chair: Let us get back to the section.
[ Page 4664 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I'm trying my best to remain directly relevant to the bill, but it's difficult with the rude interjections from the opposite side of the House. But I'll continue to try to do that, hon. Chair.
The provisions for a cooling-off period. I understand the minister is saying that was certainly the information his very capable adviser gave us on the day this report was tabled and that, in fact, the reason for removing the cooling-off period was that it didn't tend to cool off, rather it tended to heat up. Perhaps the minister can advise us whether, despite the temperature fluctuations caused by the cooling-off period, there were ever any occasions when the cooling-off period served the public interest, certainly in the short-term anyway, as it relates to essential services.
I have no further questions on that, as we're not getting any answers anyway. I yield to the member for Richmond-Steveston.
A. Warnke: I want to make some comments and ask a couple of questions on section 72. However, I did read my horoscope, and it said: "Airing your feelings can be healthy, so speak your mind rather than harboring a grudge." So my horoscope seems to encourage me to ask these questions.
As section 72 reads, the definition of essential services seems to come exclusively through the call of either management or the union, organized labour. Could the minister clarify that?
Hon. M. Sihota: No, it's the board that determines what's essential.
A. Warnke: Thank you for that answer, minister. Because it is defined exclusively by the board -- I believe that's what the minister said -- I wonder if the minister has actually taken into consideration a definition of essential services from those who are affected by any suggestion that there might be a strike. For example, consumers of products are sometimes affected by a strike. Certainly people are affected if services go on strike, such as we witnessed with the recent wildcat strike at B.C. Ferries and so forth. Another example comes to mind: students at post-secondary institutions have their careers adversely affected -- suspended sometimes for a year or even beyond that -- as a result of them being interrupted, and so forth. I wonder if the minister gave any consideration to soliciting a definition of essential services from those who would be affected by a potential strike.
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, the public was invited to give representations. It did. Secondly, I have already answered questions as to the effect on third parties. But to reiterate, when determining the levels, the board has to look at the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia. Therefore it obviously thinks about the impact on the residents with regard to the threat to health, safety or welfare.
A. Warnke: Thank you again, minister, for a very clear answer. Part of the problem many people have is that while the public was extended invitations to provide as much input as possible, the fact is it's one thing to have input but it's another thing for the public, particularly those who are serviced, to make that kind of definition. This actually follows from an earlier point raised by my colleague the member for Vancouver-Langara. It's especially acute given the second part of the minister's response in which third parties are contacted. It's interesting that we constantly use the term "third party" to refer to those who are affected by a strike. In an economy such as ours it's extremely important to note that the people who are primarily hurt through a strike are those who require the services. Expanding this more broadly, it is those who consume products and so forth. I think of students. Let me give a concrete example.
Less than two years ago the post-secondary institution at New Westminster, Douglas College, had a fairly long and acrimonious strike. As a result of that strike -- I taught the occasional course there part-time -- I knew of students who were severely affected because their whole year was suspended. Not all colleges and universities operated under the semester system that Douglas College did. Having gone through an acrimonious period in the fall, that whole semester was essentially discarded when the faculty did eventually return. Many students' careers were temporarily affected. Worse than that, however, were the many students who couldn't really carry through into the second semester as a result, particularly those from other parts of the province who had taken out board and room and rent in the cities of New Westminster and Burnaby. They found themselves in a total mess with regard to their whole academic year.
In that particular example students need the services. Regardless of how faculty, unions, management or the president and executive staff of the college may analyze the situation, it is the people serviced who are hurt first and foremost.
Hon. M. Sihota: On a point of order, I've listened with care to what the hon. member had to say. We're getting into a debate about principles of legislation, and we have been for quite some time. Although I've allowed some drift in that, I now feel the need to interject. We are in committee stage. The House has already accepted the principle of the bill. We are not debating the right to strike with regard to college instructors, nor are we dealing with the principles of designation. We're dealing with the particulars of the legislation before us.
The Chair: I'm sure the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston is getting straight to section 72 and relevancy.
A. Warnke: Right, hon. Chairman. If the minister had listened very carefully, I was just describing an example of some of the problems that are in here. We debated the principle, but this was an example of how essential services are defined, which is extremely necessary to put forward. I thought I made it very clear that there is a problem here in terms of making a
[ Page 4665 ]
reference to those affected by the services as the third party. My colleague for Vancouver-Langara initiated an extremely important point. Therefore I put this to the minister: in dealing with the question of the health, safety and welfare of the residents of British Columbia, has the minister really considered the impact it has -- I would argue -- on the first party, those directly affected by strikes?
V. Anderson: One of the realities that we have in British Columbia.... This has been brought home to us very clearly by the Korbin report that we've just received. Perhaps it's one that we need to consider, because when we're talking about essential services in section 72, we're dealing primarily with public service employees, people who have a security and a guarantee under the public service and who are in a different position than those who work in the private sector. The private sector is generally what we have thought of in the past as the development of union negotiations between private employers and private employees, and the effect of their arrangements on the public at large. That's one sector of the population. And I think that in the population in general there is a pretty fair understanding of the system and how it works between employees and employers in the private sector, and that the spillover effect of their negotiations is secondary to the larger community.
[7:15]
But when we talk about the public sector employees -- some 300,000 of them in British Columbia, according to the Korbin report -- one in five people working in British Columbia works in the public sector. That's a basic consideration. And I would question the minister whether he has taken into account -- particularly in the area of essential services, although it would overlap into other parts of the bill as well -- the difference from the point of view of the public. The public in this case is the shareholders, those who pay the salaries of the public sector, as compared with the employer-employee relationship within the private sector. I'm sure the public at large would like to see a distinction, particularly with regard to essential services, whose employees are by and large in the public sector. I would be interested if the minister would respond to the difference between the private and the public sector with regard to essential services.
Hon. M. Sihota: As I indicated earlier, both the public and private sector can make applications to the board to determine which applications will go and which designations will follow.
J. Doyle: Hon. Chair, I'd like leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Doyle: I'm very pleased to have in the galleries today the mayor of the city of Kimberley, Ald. Albert Hoglund, and public works superintendent Mike Dodd. They're down here to meet with the Municipal Affairs minister. We just had a meeting, and hopefully we'll get some progress out of that. I'd like the House to make them welcome.
L. Reid: I, too, would like leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
L. Reid: In the true spirit of women's equality, I'd like to introduce Mr. and Mrs. Joan Hoffman. They are new residents to Victoria, and I'd ask the House to make them welcome.
Section 72 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 32 | ||
| Sihota | Priddy | Edwards |
| Cashore | Charbonneau | Schreck |
| Lortie | Lali | Giesbrecht |
| Conroy | Smallwood | Hagen |
| Gabelmann | Clark | Cull |
| Zirnhelt | Blencoe | Perry |
| Barnes | B. Jones | Copping |
| Lovick | Hammell | Evans |
| Doyle | Hartley | Streifel |
| Randall | Garden | Kasper |
| Janssen | Miller | |
| NAYS -- 15 | ||
| Warnke | Cowie | Reid |
| Tyabji | Farrell-Collins | Gingell |
| Stephens | Serwa | De Jong |
| Neufeld | Symons | Anderson |
| Dalton | Jarvis | K. Jones |
Section 73 approved.
On section 74.
The Chair: We'll just take a moment, so the House can empty quietly.
J. Tyabji: With regard to section 74 -- and I'd like the minister's comments on this -- my understanding is that the changes here regarding the role of mediation are that we have increased discretion given to the minister to intervene as considered necessary. Also, there doesn't appear to be a cooling-off provision, and that's something that I would like to canvass. My understanding is that there isn't a breaking provision prior to it getting to the point where the minister might have to intervene to get a mediator.
I'd like some sort of comment. Obviously the minister can intervene and appoint a special mediator, but what does the minister think about what I call "preventive measures," something that will be a breaking provision prior to it getting to the point where the minister has to intervene?
I understand that the minister isn't quite clear. I'll admit that I have some notes here that talk about there not being a cooling-off provision prior to the point
[ Page 4666 ]
where the minister might intervene. So, for example, the minister has more discretion and increased jurisdiction.... I think the minister understands now.
Hon. M. Sihota: Cooling-off periods are dealt with under section 72. A minister can decide when the minister wants to intervene with the mediator, and then when the minister does, it's on the basis of public interest, so in effect you could give yourself some time to deal with the issue. The cooling-off periods have not been a part of this section.
In terms of preventive work, this allows for preventive mediation as well with the minister.... In a broad sense, it deals with the notion of giving assistance to the parties as early as possible, if the minister deems it to be in the public interest.
J. Tyabji: We do have the minister agreeing that he has increased discretion to intervene as considered necessary. I heard the minister say that his decision to intervene would be based on the public interest. Could the minister explain, first of all, why it was necessary to have a change in the bill that would allow greater discretion for the minister? Secondly, could the minister give us an example of a situation where he would feel he had to intervene?
Hon. M. Sihota: This is a move you should be applauding. This is something that we're doing to give the minister the discretion which he did not have or she did not have earlier on. It allows the minister power of involvement through mediation, which had been taken away from the minister in the previous legislation in 1987 -- Bill 19 -- and vested in the hands of the IRC and bureaucrats. This gives the minister a greater repertoire of options during the course of a dispute.
[7:30]
J. Tyabji: I'm not saying that the opposition isn't necessarily applauding this. I want to know what the reasons are for the minister having more discretion. I will point out the fact that in a previous debate I encouraged the minister to have some discretion in terms of third-party interests going before the board, and the minister chose not to even respond to that suggestion. So certainly the opposition feels that there should be an avenue for the minister to intervene if he considers that it is important enough to do so.
The minister stated public interest as being one of the factors that would drive the minister to intervene. I specifically asked the minister to give us an example of a situation where he felt that he would intervene and appoint a mediator.
Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, I'm reluctant to give an example, because I don't want to comment unfavorably or be seen to be commenting unfavorably with regard to a dispute. I can certainly think of a dispute that came across my desk where the parties did not request any action but I felt all along that there was a need for mediation services, and this would give the minister that power.
J. Tyabji: The minister refers to Bill 19 as having been something that had changed the Labour Act so that the minister did not have the powers to intervene and that now they were reintroducing those powers to intervene. Considering this minister was in opposition for the majority of the time that Bill 19 was in place, could the minister give us some examples of times when he was in opposition where a labour dispute came up and the provisions of Bill 19 did not allow for ministerial interference but the provisions of Bill 84 would? What was it that made the minister realize that he had to bring this back in, and how would he have changed things in the past?
Hon. M. Sihota: Arguably, there were lots, but remember the boycott was in effect at that time, so you weren't even getting matters coming before the board because of the boycott. We can just reflect back in time. Issues in relation to the construction industry, for example, would have been something we could have been involved in.
J. Tyabji: I guess where I'm having a problem is obviously not being the Labour critic. The Labour critic is much more familiar with this, but I'm trying to get some kind of concrete example from the minister so that we can pursue some of the other subsections of section 74. It would be, I think, very useful for the House to have some example of where the minister would like to take this provision of the bill in terms of ministerial interference.
I have brought this up in previous parts of the debate as well. We do have part 10 of the bill, which also increases the powers of the minister's office -- and I know that this is one of those bills where every section is related to every other section, so we are faced with a different situation than we ever had in the past because of sections 1 and 2 taking us in a radically different direction than we've been before.
Could the minister please explain to us how section 74 fits in with part 10 and the increased powers of the minister's office and the fact that the minister has the ability to intervene.
Hon. M. Sihota: We'll deal with part 10 when we get to it. We're supposed to be dealing with section 74 at this point.
J. Tyabji: In case the minister didn't understand, in section 74 we have increased discretion to the minister to intervene as considered necessary, and that also relates to part 10. I mentioned earlier in the debate, when we were on section 72, that we had repeated assurances from the minister during committee stage on previous sections of the bill that when we got to section 72, we would deal with section 6; when we got to section 72, we'd deal with section 33. Now we're in section 74, and he says that we'll deal with part 10 when we get there. That's fine; I expected that. In fact, we anticipate that when we get to part 10, we will deal with part 10.
We've got the increased powers of the minister's office tucked away in part 10. We can debate, piece by
[ Page 4667 ]
piece, the significance of part 10, but is there any direct significance or impact on section 74? Although we have the reintroduction of increased ministerial discretion, this bill takes us in a different direction than any other labour bill that has ever come before the House. Part 10 increases the minister's powers. This being new discretion reintroduced for the Minister of Labour's office, and part 10 being a new level of power for the minister's office, does the minister have anything on section 74 on how that would affect his discretion?
Hon. M. Sihota: We're really having trouble over here, because we don't understand which sections of part 10 you're trying to relate it to, hon. member.
Section 74 approved.
On section 75.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have a quick question with regard to section 75. As section 75 is written, my understanding is that we have the provision for a 72-hour strike notice. In the past it was my understanding that the strike notice could be given, and we could sort of continue in perpetuity. I thought that the government intended to tighten this up a little bit so that at the end of the 72 hours it was required that notice be given once again, if no strike activity had taken place at that time. I'm asking the minister to explain some of the reasoning behind that.
Hon. M. Sihota: We did that with regard to essential services, hon. members.
Sections 75 to 77 inclusive approved.
On section 78.
R. Neufeld: Section 78 deals with last-offer votes. Our party feels fairly strongly that because of the impact of last-party votes -- it's finally decided whether you will have a lockout or a strike -- they should be government supervised. I don't think an amendment like that is too far out of order. The idea of having a government-supervised vote, of course, is to alleviate any problems that may happen, could happen or be perceived to happen. I think we've all dealt with some perceptions at different times that weren't really true.
I'd like to move the amendment standing on the order paper in the name of the member for Okanagan-Vernon.
[SECTION 78, by the addition of the words: "government supervised" before the word: "vote" wherever it appears in the section.]
Hon. M. Sihota: Point of order. The member for Okanagan-Vernon and I have dealt with this kind of issue on other sections. I appreciate he's not here today, but I'll put this on the record. We've already said that any votes that are board-or government-directed will be government supervised. Therefore the amendment is not necessary; it will be covered by regulation. The regulation will cover this section so as to bring about a government supervised vote.
R. Neufeld: We appreciate that and accept it. The member for Okanagan-Vernon just wanted to confirm that we get on the record that that's the way it would be.
The Chair: The member withdraws the amendment?
R. Neufeld: Yes.
The Chair: So ordered.
Sections 78 to 102 inclusive approved.
On section 103.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have a quick question on section 103. There has been a change, in my understanding, from five days to 30 days. Perhaps the minister could advise us of the rationale for that change.
Hon. M. Sihota: We were running into some difficulty in complying with the five-day provision, hence the 30-day provision, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: That gives me a bit of concern, given that in other cases when we've had dealings with the board with provisions, the minister made it very clear that the board can act almost instantaneously if necessary. In fact, we've allowed a number of changes to the bill to go through on the assurance from the minister that timing would not be a problem. Perhaps the minister can explain why 30 days are required here, when in other cases we've been down to two and three days. We didn't even need working days. In fact, we were told we could work on the weekend.
Hon. M. Sihota: We're talking about people outside the realm of the employment of the government who are in demand and cannot work within a five-day provision yet the parties want them on the cost-sharing basis as laid out in this section. Hence the 30-day provision, hon. member.
Section 103 approved.
On section 104.
G. Farrell-Collins: Sections 104 and 105, of course, are new sections. All you have to do is read it to understand that the intent is to speed up the arbitration process and to make it work better. That, I assume, is what the government is trying to do. Perhaps the minister can walk us through a little and explain section 104 to some extent, while we're at it, and then 105 when we get there. Given that these areas didn't receive a great deal of coverage in second reading, this is
[ Page 4668 ]
probably the only opportunity we'll have to discuss them at any length.
Hon. M. Sihota: This is a new, important section of the bill, which establishes the process of expedited arbitration. It's certainly one which the government encourages. Certainly both labour and business were very vocal in wanting some changes, or wanting this kind of provision. They often complained about the length of delay and the cost of arbitration. It's a process of expedited arbitration available upon application of either party. The director of the new arbitration bureau would appoint a single arbitrator from a standing roster of arbitrators -- this is a suggestion that I certainly agree with -- to hear the matter within 28 days of an application and then to render a decision within 21 days of the conclusion of the hearing. That will provide for an expedited hearing, and we put statutory provisions in here to allow for that expeditious hearing.
In addition, an option exists for the involvement of a settlement officer to assist the parties, if they both agree to such an appointment. Again, the purpose is to try to resolve disputes. This section is modelled on successful experiences in both Manitoba and Ontario.
[7:45]
R. Neufeld: I move the amendment standing in the name of the member for Okanagan-Vernon on the order paper.
[SECTION 104(4)(a), by the addition of the words: "agreed to by both parties" after the words: "shall appoint an arbitrator".]
Our Labour critic has said that this is probably fairly important. It really doesn't change the thrust of the bill to any big degree, and he would like to see it put into the bill.
On the amendment.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm going to speak against the amendment. I'm not going to take issue with the appropriateness of the amendment -- whether it's in order or not. I'll take the view that it is in order.
We have found that there have been a lot of delays as the parties have argued over who should be the arbitrator. That in itself is a cost, and indeed it has the effect of diseasing the relationship. Secondly, it should be noted, as I said earlier, that this is a provision which allows for a single arbitrator to be appointed. That person will be selected at random from a roster, so that there is no opportunity here for an ongoing bias. On top of that, the list is developed through a selection process which is reviewed by the director of the arbitration bureau; again the vagaries of the situation are attended to, so that there is no bias.
We've already passed section 83, but that section establishes the bureau and the arbitrator. As the minister, I will have to appoint a joint advisory committee: two persons representing trade unions, two persons representing employers, two persons representing the arbitrator, and the director who will chair the committee. The committee will then deal jointly with the training and the education of the arbitrators and settlement officers, the research and publication of information concerning labour arbitrations, and the establishment and maintenance of a registrar of arbitrators. So you can see that there is an appropriate safety net built in to make sure that you don't have a skewed system. Obviously, as I said at the outset, the purpose here is to develop a system in which people have confidence.
L. Reid: I speak in favour of this amendment, because I believe, quite honestly, that we need to be looking at some kind of conciliation, some kind of cooperation. I don't believe, hon. minister, that it's a difficult exercise: having both parties submit names, and once a name is common to both lists, that is the name that goes forward. You spoke very strongly in this House on open government, on the need to bring people on board. I think we're well beyond imposing a mediator, because that flies in the face of what you intend to achieve. So I support this amendment. I hope that you would allow it to percolate for another few moments, and perhaps we can come to some kind of consensus in terms of mediation actually being spawned from some kind of cooperative process.
Hon. M. Sihota: If you look over section 105, you'll see there's a process for consensual mediation-arbitration, hon. member. This section deals with expedited arbitration; the next section deals with the consensual approach.
L. Reid: Hon. minister, we are not convinced that expedited arbitration can't be consensual as well, because, quite honestly, what we want to achieve here is some kind of cooperation. All you're offering, and all the hon. member is asking for in his amendment, is choice. Can both parties have a choice? Can they decide on the best person to mediate their dispute? The long-range goal, hopefully, is to reach some kind of consensus in the quickest possible time, if that is indeed your wish as well. It seems that this is a very reasonable amendment, and again I would ask for your consideration.
Amendment negatived.
Section 104 approved.
On section 105.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I guess we finished section 104, and we're on 105. Sorry. Sometimes the calls for votes come so fast and furious that we get carried away with ourselves.
I suppose that 105 is the other half of the arbitration process the minister hopes to implement. Once again, perhaps I can give the minister an opportunity to speak to this section, given that it hasn't received much coverage or debate in the House to this point in time.
[ Page 4669 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, this is a further new option that's available to the parties by way of mutual agreement. This section allows for the parties to make an application for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve outstanding mid-contract disputes by the mediation-arbitration approach.
We found over the last year that there were a number of situations where med-arb -- as they call it -- makes a lot of sense. Instead of just arbitration or mediation, it is a combination of mediation and arbitration. It's certainly an approach that I've found has worked with regard to disputes we've had. A mediator-arbitrator appointed by the director of arbitration will work under the same time limits as those established for expedited arbitration under section 104, and it gives the parties another option for resolving mid-contract disputes. It's in keeping with the principle of the bill in terms of encouraging the parties to find solutions to disputes themselves with the assistance of a mediator.
Sections 105 to 140 inclusive approved.
On section 141.
G. Farrell-Collins: Section 141 deals with the appeal process, and one of the restrictions that exists here is that new evidence must be available before we go to an appeal process. I guess the question is: is that necessary, since what we have here is not a judicial body but merely a quasi-judicial body? They're dealing with slightly different things, and given that certainly in numerous cases decisions can be made which may not, in retrospect, be good ones, we may need to come back to them. I know that there have been cases where decisions have been made, and part of the decision that's come down from an arbitrator or from a board -- particularly the arbitrator -- is that the arbitrator retains jurisdiction over that issue. What you have is a case where maybe a poor decision has been made, and the arbitrator in question maintains ownership over that poor decision throughout time. There is no way to free either party from a poor decision made initially. That is perhaps an unintended consequence of this section, and something which would require some second thought.
I would hate to see the situation.... I know it has occurred, certainly from my discussions with some practitioners and lawyers who deal with labour relations. They have had cases where an arbitrator has made a decision which they're not comfortable with. In that decision the arbitrator has retained ownership of that dispute for some period of time, which means they end up with a poor or, for that matter, an unworkable decision, one that cannot be implemented. The parties are forced to continue with that arbitrator, and with the arbitration of the poor decision made previously. Despite the fact that maybe no new evidence has come into force, there were perhaps some unintended effects or some unworkable sections of a decision that needed to be dealt with, and perhaps there was no way of doing that.
Certainly I know that with the new role that the minister has planned, and with the larger number of arbitrators, this bank of arbitrators, that he hopes to draw from.... Perhaps there may be some there who don't have the same experience that others do -- some of the more prominent professionals in the field -- and there may end up being problems because of a less-experienced arbitrator making a decision that's unworkable, and the parties involved not being able to free themselves from that decision. Perhaps the minister could explain some of those concerns.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not too sure if I understand the concern. You can appeal a decision of an arbitrator under other provisions. This is a reconsideration of a decision of the board, when the board makes a determination. That's what we're dealing with here. Second, if the board makes a determination which neither of the parties can live with -- you were talking about a bad decision that binds the parties -- they simply have to apply for leave for reconsideration of the decision under section 141. I would think they would argue 141(2)(b) as the operative argument with regard to that kind of situation. Reconsideration by the board will now require leave from the board. It can be provided when the decision is inconsistent with the code.
You should know that under existing legislation there is no limit on the reconsideration of decisions. As a result, some matters which involved a lot of board reconsideration or time have come back over and over again to the attention of the board, resulting in the appropriate costs and so on. The fact is that we provide for an appeal under this section, whereas other jurisdictions don't even do that. Appeals for jurisdiction in arbitrators' decisions are found in section 99 of the act; appeal of the jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal is found in section 100. We've already passed those sections, so there's some confusion in my mind in terms of what you're getting at. This does not deal with an arbitrator's decision.
Sections 141 to 160 inclusive approved.
On section 161.
G. Farrell-Collins: Section 161 deals more with the transitional provisions of this bill, and is certainly of concern to a number of members of the public. Therefore, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 161 All applications, proceedings, actions and inquiries commenced under the Industrial Relations Act shall be continued to their conclusion and treated for all purposes under and in conformity with the Industrial Relations Act.]
On the amendment.
G. Farrell-Collins: Section 161 is, of course, a concern. If the Chair will indulge me for a moment -- they're not long sections -- perhaps I can read the section and then read the amendment. Section 161 states:
[ Page 4670 ]
"All applications, proceedings, actions and inquiries commenced under the Industrial Relations Act shall be continued to their conclusion and treated for all purposes under and in conformity with this code so far as it may be done consistently with this code."
My understanding is that all processes in the works right now will be ruled on under a whole new set of regulations after this bill becomes law -- whenever that may be, in the next day or two. Perhaps that's a little unfair. The minister is shaking is head. Maybe he would wish to explain.
Hon. M. Sihota: The law has changed. You don't want a two-track process. You can't have case laws being developed under the Industrial Relations Act at the same time that cases are being developed or analyzed under the principles found in this legislation simply because they started on a different day -- let's say tomorrow. You have to say that there's some finality to the existing legislation. We certainly will not support an amendment that achieves what you're trying to achieve here, which would give ongoing life to the Industrial Relations Act.
We take the view that the transitional process should be as I have outlined it. This transitional process is consistent with that outlined in the Interpretation Act. Quite frankly, this section would not have been here except for the fact that this legislation gets a lot of attention. Otherwise, the provisions of the Interpretation Act would have kicked in in any event. So it's our view that new applications should be dealt with under provisions of the new code once this new legislation is implemented.
[8:00]
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister seems quite perplexed that this amendment would even be offered and quite confused as to why or where this two-track method comes in. It's my understanding that this two-track provision existed under Bill 19. To my mind it's only fair that applications made under existing rules should continue under those rules until they reach their conclusion. It's not going to take forever. There are processes in place that have been working for the last little while, more or less. Applications brought forward under past legislation should be ruled under the Industrial Relations Act and the jurisprudence that exists when those applications are brought forward. To change the rules in midstream for those parties that have made an application under the act is both unfair and unwise. It removes the element of certainty. You can file knowing full well that you're working under existing rules.
If I can go back to the minister's intent in this bill, those sections that will allow for future amendments to Bill 84 a year or two or three from now will cause great concern to the general public. As they come up to each legislative session, they're going to wonder: "Do I bring in a case? Do I spend money building a case, hiring lawyers and presenting before the Labour Relations Board? All I know is that once the government sees it coming, they can come in and change the law on me halfway through the game." That is not conducive at all to good labour relations or a process that instils confidence in those people who are governed by it. I think the only fair thing to do under this section would be the same as was done under the last set of legislative changes, which was to ensure that those actions that were filed under the old legislation were heard under the old legislation, and that those actions that were filed under the new legislation were heard under the new legislation. That's only fair to the individuals and the parties involved, with regard to the costs and to the fairness and justice that would be seen to be done.
Hon. M. Sihota: This is a standard provision, consistent with the Interpretation Act, and we will stick with the provision that we've outlined.
G. Farrell-Collins: We've spent seven or eight weeks on this bill, and we're now down to the final minutes -- or hour, anyway -- of debate on this bill and the last amendment, which is to deal with the transitional provisions in order to ensure that there's fairness in the mind of the public. It's one last chance for the government to ensure that fairness is seen to be done in this case, and the minister shrugs it off with the same arrogance and disdain that has been shown to all the amendments that have been brought forward for the better interests of the public. I think that's unfortunate.
This amendment is merely to take the time and make the effort, on behalf of the government, for a transitional process to take place so that those provisions that were filed under the legislation that's currently in place will continue to be ruled upon, with the understanding that that is the legislation they filed under. That is the only fair way to proceed. If we change the rules in midstream for all those people who have cases before the Labour Relations Board, who have spent time and money and who have counted on, planned on, had meetings on or set up a case based on a set of rules, then we are being extremely unfair to those people. They've spent time and money to ensure that their case is held under the only rules that they know exist -- those that were in the Industrial Relations Act at the time. Now the minister intends to change in midstream to a new set of rules and to judge under Bill 84 all those cases that were built up and presented previously.
How can you possibly instil confidence in the general public or in the two parties -- labour and business -- in the fairness of this government and their intent to deal fairly with both parties? I think it's extremely unfortunate that a simple amendment like this, which would see fairness to both parties, is rejected by the minister. I hope that the minister would take a second look at this legislation and try to make the appropriate changes to it, so that fairness is seen to be done to all parties.
L. Reid: I would like to speak in favour of the amendment and to add to the points raised by the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. I believe that this government has ample opportunity to coordinate the exercise over time. I do not believe it is fair for any group in society to change the rules in midstream. I
[ Page 4671 ]
think there has to be some respect inherent in this legislation in order to allow existing contracts to come to their natural conclusion. I think, quite honestly, that no one in this province has a contract of extensive tenure such that we would have to wait many months or years for this act to come into force. But to impose something else on groups in this province that have fairly negotiated labour contracts is abundantly unfair. Frankly, this government campaigned on open government and on the ability for people to have some input into decisions that directly impact on them. I think that's important. Changing it midstream provides an opportunity for the public to come back and cry foul and say that, again, their wishes were not respected. As the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove indicated, they spent a lot of time and effort negotiating those contracts. Not to allow them to reach the natural conclusion, and to somehow put in place a set of parameters that do not necessarily apply.... I need the minister to respond to that question. What the member has asked and what I am asking is simply for a call to fairness in terms of how we shift into a new labour code in the province. I would ask for the minister's consideration.
Hon. M. Sihota: I've already made my points. The collective agreements continue whether or not this section is passed. You made reference in your comments to collective agreements. This only deals with proceedings, actions and inquiries under the act. The LRB does have some discretion with regard to these matters. I'm sure they will be mindful of arguments, along the lines that you've just made, when they're made by the parties that initiated an action or proceeding prior to the proclamation of this act.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments that the collective agreements still stand. That was never at issue. My concern is about the interpretation of subsequent activities or events pursuant to pieces of legislation and negotiated agreements that are out there. The question I will put to you directly is: will the interpretation change in any way, shape or form based on Bill 84, as opposed to the existing agreements that they negotiated these particular contracts under?
Hon. M. Sihota: They may or may not, depending on the approach the Labour Relations Board takes.
Amendment negatived.
Section 161 approved.
On section 162.
G. Farrell-Collins: On section 162, the transitional period for membership cards, again, we're in the middle here, between the implementation of one bill and the other bill. Section 162 states that if an application is made for certification within 90 days of the passing of this bill, the board may -- and I guess the key word there is "may" -- order that a representation vote should take place. I assume that the reasoning for that is that some cards may have been signed under the understanding that there was going to be a vote, and other cards may have been signed under the understanding that there would not be a vote. In my mind, if there's even a chance that cards have been signed under the understanding that there would be a vote sometime in the future, people who have signed the cards should all have the right to vote under the old regulations, given that that was their understanding at the time they signed the cards.
Hon. M. Sihota: Your understanding of why the section is there is correct, but you really focused on the use of the word "may" as opposed to "shall." Let's not forget that a prescribed membership form will be established by a regulation of this bill. Where the form has not been used because the membership sign-up preceded the bill coming into force, the board should then have the discretion to order a representation vote.
G. Farrell-Collins: Obviously we haven't seen the regulations; we've seen the draft regulations. Perhaps the minister could run through that once again for us a little more slowly and then explain what the significance of the wording is and how that relates to this section.
Hon. M. Sihota: The regulations will very closely follow the drafts that we've received. As you're aware, and as I said, there has not been a regulation passed under this bill for a prescribed membership form. Where that form has not been used because the membership sign-up preceded this bill coming into force, in our view the board should have the discretion to order a representation vote.
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess we haven't really changed anything at all; we're exactly where we were when I made my first comments. Despite the regulations, the board will have the discretion, according to the minister, to determine which is the case. It would be my understanding that if this new form comes into force.... Certainly if all, or 55 percent, of those who signed up had the new form, it would be quite clear that there was automatic certification. But if anything fewer than 55 percent of those members used the form -- if there were others who had signed but who perhaps had not used the form -- then in my mind it's quite clear the direction the board should take from that is to call a representative vote, because obviously we're not operating under the new legislation and the new regulations.
Wouldn't it be easy to change the wording of this section to allow for that -- to state that where those cards are signed up under the new procedure, there will be no need for a vote, and automatic certification will apply; and that where in fact the new form has not been used to the level of 55 percent, the vote should be ordered? Couldn't that be clearly stated in this section?
[ Page 4672 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: It's not a bad point. I would think that the board will look at the evidence and make some determinations, and will canvass the very issues that you raise in making those determinations.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps just a bit of clarification. Seeing as the minister has been so adept at managing not to make statements that he did not want to make throughout this whole debate, perhaps this is an opportunity for him, in the closing minutes of the debate, to make a fairly clear statement that that is in fact the intent and that there's no attempt here to try and cause certification problems: "Let's keep it very clear. That which works under the new form system will be automatic, and that which doesn't reach the 55 percent level of new forms will require a vote." That would be a clear statement; it's not difficult to make.
Hon. M. Sihota: Earlier during the debate I indicated that I was a model of consistency. I'll be as consistent as I have been in the past with respect to the clarity of my comments.
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess that means it's as clear as mud. Once again I guess we're at a point where.... One clear comment from the minister over eight weeks of debate would serve to cause less confusion out there in the organization process, to give clear direction to the public, to give clear direction to the employers and the employees in these various potential bargaining units as to what the rules are going to be for the next 90 days. This isn't a far-reaching process. This isn't an ongoing thing that's going to come back to haunt the minister three years from now; it's merely a transitional provision to deal with the next 90 days. I fail to see why the minister can't give some clear direction so that the public out there will know what's anticipated in this bill and so that both parties will save a lot of time in the certification process, a lot of representations before the board, a lot of money and a lot of frustration in bringing those types of presentations before the board. One clear statement from the minister would save thousands of dollars for both parties, unions and employers, and would save a lot of frustration, a lot of confusion and a lot of time so that the board won't have to deal with these types of things as they're dealing with the implementation of the new bill.
[8:15]
Hon. M. Sihota: I've already made a point on this section, which I'm sure many will read. Secondly, if your point is that the government is not prepared to accept any of the opposition's amendments to this bill, you should just wait.
G. Farrell-Collins: Given that we are past any of the opposition amendments that have been brought forward, with the exception of one that needs to be recalled from much earlier, which is in fact a government amendment, I'd be very interested to see what the minister has in store for us tonight. Maybe there's a surprise for all of us in that the government has come to its senses and intends to make changes to the bill after all. We can only hope.
Sections 162 to 176 inclusive approved.
On section 33.
Hon. M. Sihota: We're not quite done yet. I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 33(6)(b), by deleting "the employer" and substituting "any person".]
On the amendment.
Hon. M. Sihota: This amendment deals with section 33(6)(b), and if I may give appropriate credit, this issue was raised by the opposition critic from the Social Credit Party during the course of debate. He pointed out that there was a need there to substitute the word "person" for the word "employer," and so I would move the amendment, with due credit to the member for Okanagan-Vernon. This is the one amendment from the opposition that we have accepted.
Amendment approved.
Section 33 as amended approved.
Schedules 1 and 2 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. M. Sihota: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 34 | ||
| Sihota | Priddy | Edwards |
| Cashore | Charbonneau | Schreck |
| Lortie | MacPhail | Lali |
| Giesbrecht | Conroy | Smallwood |
| Hagen | Gabelmann | Clark |
| Cull | Zirnhelt | Blencoe |
| Perry | Barnes | Copping |
| Lovick | Ramsey | Hammell |
| Evans | Doyle | Hartley |
| Streifel | Krog | Randall |
| Garden | Kasper | Janssen |
| Miller | ||
| NAYS -- 14 | ||
| Warnke | Reid | Tyabji |
| Farrell-Collins | Gingell | Stephens |
| Serwa | De Jong | Neufeld |
| Symons | Hurd | Dalton |
| Jarvis | K. Jones | |
[ Page 4673 ]
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The Chair: Hon. Speaker, the Chair of committees would like to express his appreciation to all members for their good humour and relevancy in tonight's debate, because we rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Bill 84, Labour Relations Code, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
G. Farrell-Collins: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Farrell-Collins: I notice in the gallery tonight someone who has worked diligently with me on this bill for some time -- months and months and months -- coordinating a wide selection and variety of people who have contributed to the research on this bill: my researcher Arlene Shwetz. I'd like to extend my extreme appreciation.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 8:28 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada